AllTrails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context: filter values must be in meters, response includes both metric and imperial units, and locale-based display requirements.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. Concise yet comprehensive.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many filters, units, alternative tool), the description covers key behavioral aspects (units, when to use alternative, response format). The output schema exists but the description notes response units, which is sufficient.

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?

Although the schema already contains rich parameter descriptions, the tool description adds value by specifying that numeric range filters must be in meters and explaining the response unit handling, which is not in the schema.

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 finds trails near coordinates, enumerates activity types, and distinguishes from the sibling 'find_trails_within_bounds' tool by specifying when to use each.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria (specific coordinates, points of interest, time constraints) and when-not-to-use (prefer bounding box tool for named places). Also covers filter specifications and response unit handling.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds contextual details like units requirement and response formatting but no additional behavioral traits (auth, rate limits). Adequate but not exceeding baseline.

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 well-structured with bullet points for usage scenarios and filter details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly long, each sentence adds value, making it efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple filters, bounding box) and rich schema with descriptions, the description adequately completes the picture with usage guidelines, unit constraints, and response handling. No obvious gaps.

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?

Although context signals report 0% schema coverage, the actual schema contains detailed descriptions for most parameters. The description adds specific unit requirements (meters) and response interpretation, but schema already covers parameter meaning well. Baseline 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 finds trails within a bounding box defined by coordinates, listing specific activities. It distinguishes from sibling find_trails_near_location by explicitly mentioning bounding box vs. center point.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (bounding box for named places, parks) and when-not (if bounding box unknown, use alternative tool). This is excellent guidance for agent decision-making.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: length and distance values are returned in both meters and imperial units, and must be displayed according to locale. It also explains that recent reviews are summarized and that the agent should redirect for specific reviews. These go beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured into clear paragraphs covering overview, content types, stats, unit handling, and review guidance. While informative, it could be slightly more concise; some sentences are explanatory but not overly verbose. No wasted words, but some efficiency could be gained.

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?

Given the tool has only 1 parameter (with nested object), no enums, and an output schema available, the description covers essential usage aspects: what data is returned, unit handling, and review guidance. It does not discuss error scenarios or expected inputs beyond the required trail_id, but the output schema likely fills gaps. The completeness is adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The description does not explicitly describe the parameters (trail_id, locale) but adds context relevant to their use: the unit display instruction ties to the locale parameter. The schema itself includes a detailed description for locale, so the description's contribution is marginal. With schema coverage effectively 0% at the tool level, a score of 3 reflects the added value for parameter handling.

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 function: 'Find detailed information about a trail from AllTrails.' It enumerates specific content types (overviews, accessibility, activities, stats, review summary) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are for finding or weather, not details). The verb 'find' and resource 'trail details' are specific, and differentiations are evident.

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 provides implicit usage context: use this when you have a specific trail and need detailed information. It includes an explicit guideline about reviews: 'If the user wants information that might be found in specific reviews, direct the user to the AllTrails web URL.' This clarifies a limitation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer sibling tools or when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral details beyond annotations: it's a 7-day forecast, includes high/low temperatures, and is scoped to the trailhead. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second provides value-adding guidance. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters with defaults, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns (7-day forecast, high/low), where it applies (trailhead), and a fallback for more detail. The output schema likely handles return value documentation, so the description is sufficiently 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?

The parameter schema includes detailed descriptions for all parameters (trail_id, units, locale), so the description does not need to add much. The description briefly mentions 'trail' but does not elaborate on units or locale. However, since schema coverage is effectively high (descriptions present), a 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get 7-day forecast for a trail at its trailhead, including high/low temperatures.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'trail's weather forecast' are specific, and it explicitly mentions the scope (7-day, trailhead, high/low temps), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_trails_near_location or get_trail_details.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when a trail's weather forecast is needed) and includes a referral to an alternative for more detailed information (the AllTrails web URL via get_trail_details). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name siblings directly, so the guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: search can be biased by coordinates, and returned length/distance values are in both metric and imperial units with locale-based display instructions. No contradictions.

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 concise (~100 words), well-structured with clear bullet points for usage, and includes essential behavioral notes without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 purpose, usage, behavior (coordinate bias, display units), and follow-up actions (call get_trail_details). An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, but context indicates 0% schema description coverage (possibly a discrepancy). The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions location bias and display formatting which are not parameter-specific. Baseline 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: 'Search for hiking, running, biking, backpacking or other trails by full or partial name match.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., find_trails_near_location) by explicitly focusing on name-based search.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: when the user requests a specific trail by name or searches with keywords. It also advises a subsequent call to get_trail_details for clear matches. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool.

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