buscar_disponibilidad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it adequately discloses that the tool checks availability and allows filtering by municipality, neighborhood, and guest count. As a read-only search operation, it doesn't require disclosure of side effects or permissions. The description adds context about the geographic scope (La Palma) and the filtering capability.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes only necessary details about filters. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition or fluff.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior, targets, and filters. Although there is no output schema to reference, the description implies that the tool returns a list of available properties, which is sufficient for a search tool of this complexity. Slight gap: it doesn't specify the exact return format, but the core completeness is strong.

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 100%, with every parameter already having a description, format, or default. The description only names the filter parameters (municipio, barrio, num_personas) without adding additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for available vacation properties in La Palma for specific dates. It specifies the resource (properties), the action (search availability), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_propiedades or calcular_precio_estancia by focusing on date-based availability and filtering.

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 implies when to use this tool—when looking for properties available on specific dates—by explicitly mentioning date requirements and available filters. It doesn't name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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