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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds domain context (backcountry sold as zones vs numbered sites; entry-date vs nights semantics) but says nothing about the tool's own behavior — no error case for an unknown park_id, no note that missing parks return nothing — so it sits at the baseline-plus level.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that gets to the point immediately and then lists only fields that carry decision value (booking URL, zones-vs-sites, backcountry_is_entry_date). The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place; no filler or restatement of the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained — yet the description helpfully flags the two fields an agent must interpret (zones-vs-numbered-sites, backcountry_is_entry_date) for downstream alert creation, which is exactly the domain nuance that raw schema text would miss. The only real gap is the missing pointer to how one obtains a park_id.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, though that schema text is only 'Park id.' The description never clarifies where a park_id comes from or what it looks like, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. Per the high-coverage rule, baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full detail for a single park') and enumerates the salient contents, which cleanly separates it from list-oriented siblings like search_parks, list_park_campgrounds and list_zone_sites. An agent can pick this over those siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching one park's full record when the id is known. No alternative is named (e.g. 'use search_parks to find a park_id'), and no precondition is spelled out. The one useful routing hint is indirect — backcountry_is_entry_date determines whether an alert uses entry_dates or a nights range — but it is framed as a field explanation, not as when-to-use guidance.

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