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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds useful context about combining provider advisories with wildfire proximity and system-wide scope, but does not disclose return format or data freshness.

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?

Two compact sentences convey the payload, scope, and intended use without redundancy. The core scope information is front-loaded, and every clause contributes to choosing or using the tool correctly.

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 tool with three optional, well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and appropriate usage. The only notable omission is detail about the alert return structure, but this is not critical for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description's 'one park or system-wide' restates what the park parameter says and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the resource: active advisories plus wildfire proximity, and the scope: one park or system-wide. It is distinguishable from weather, availability, and booking siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists.'

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use before recommending a park in summer,' and clarifies these are verify-before-travel notices, not booking claims. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or an exhaustive when-not-to-use condition.

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