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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns a 'full list' and is for filter clarification, but it does not elaborate on return structure, ordering, or edge cases. This is adequate given the annotation coverage, but no extra behavioral depth is provided.

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 action and resource, and the second sentence gives a practical use case. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and relies on annotations for safety. Minor missing details like exact return format are not critical at this complexity level.

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 single optional parameter feature_type has a clear schema description ('Filter by feature category'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely implies the filter behavior when mentioning 'full list'.

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 action ('Get the full list') and resource ('available features/amenities that campsites can have'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_accommodation_types and get_regions by focusing specifically on campsite feature filters.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to help users understand what filters are available or to clarify what a feature means.' It provides clear context but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so a minor gap remains.

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