Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate it is a mutation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds that a NEW signed offer is generated with the new total, and that the most recent offer should be used for booking. It does not disclose side effects like invalidation of the old offer or reversibility, which given the non-destructive annotation is a partial gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences (plus a Spanish translation) and front-loads the action. The English part is efficient and includes the key workflow. The bilingual duplication is redundant but not excessively lengthy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: applying an alternative, receiving a new offer, and using it for booking. It lacks explicit steps (e.g., needing to fetch alternatives first) but the output schema and sibling names help fill context. It is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implies that 'alternativa_id' comes from the named sources, and 'oferta_paquete_firmada' is the current signed offer. 'noche_num' is implied by 'swap the hotel of one night' but not explicitly described. It adds moderate meaning but not full parameter-level detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action: swap the hotel of one night by applying an alternative from specific sources (camino_hotel_alternatives or adjust_camino_package) and produces a new signed offer. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the input source and the output, even mentioning the exact field name for the new offer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives context: it requires an alternative from named tools and advises using the most recent offer for create_camino_booking_proposal. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus adjust_camino_package or other alternatives, nor does it say when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.