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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the scope ('all parks'), the output fields (name, type, town, coordinates), the geographic coverage, and a key semantic nuance about 'type' vs accommodation. It does not specify the exact output format or coordinate format, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool this is sufficient transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: the core statement comes first, followed by a clarifying distinction and then practical usage guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no repetition of the tool name or title.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, this description is complete. It specifies what data is returned, the geographic scope, the meaning of a potentially ambiguous field, and how the results should be used with sibling tools. No output schema exists, but the description adequately compensates by naming the returned fields.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered by its empty properties. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameters, and it adds useful context about the slug usage that relates to how the returned data will be consumed.

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 exactly what the tool returns: all Floreal Holidays holiday parks in Belgium with name, type, town and coordinates. It also clearly differentiates this from list_accommodation_types by explaining that 'type' refers to the kind of site, not accommodation, so an agent cannot confuse the two tools.

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 tells the agent when not to use this tool for accommodation details and names the alternative: 'ask list_accommodation_types for that.' It also provides concrete downstream guidance, instructing the agent to use the name as a slug for the `domain` argument of other tools, which makes the tool's role in a workflow unambiguous.

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