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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: results are nearest-first, the straight-line radius caps at 50 miles, and national parks are absent from the dataset — a substantive caveat an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 short sentences with zero padding; the core scope and ordering come first and the national-parks caveat follows. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of ordering and record exclusion is valuable, and the annotations cover the safety profile. But for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained cost enum and limit parameter leave an agent guessing about filter semantics.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it only partially does. It clarifies the semantics of radius ('straight-line radius, up to 50 miles') but says nothing about the cost enum values (free/fee/unpriced/license), what limit does, or that limit and radius have defaults of 5 and 15.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Camp records') plus the scope ('within a straight-line radius ... of a latitude and longitude') and the result ordering ('nearest first'). That clearly separates it from camp_detail (single record) and plan_four_nights, though it never names find_camps or free_camping_near_town, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the proximity-search tool, and the note 'National parks are not in the records' functions as a scope exclusion. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to find_camps or free_camping_near_town, which an agent would need to choose correctly.

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