Suggest candidate adventures near a location by scoring nearby trails/parks/campgrounds deterministically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lng | Yes | ||
| types | No | ||
| max_results | No | ||
| radius_miles | No | ||
| trail_difficulty | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context about deterministic scoring, but the readOnlyHint annotation already conveys safety. No contradictions, but more details on scoring logic or return behavior would improve 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?
A single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function without extraneous information, earning its place efficiently.
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?
Despite low complexity, the description omits key details like return format, scoring criteria, and parameter constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not mention any (lat, lng, types, max_results, radius_miles, trail_difficulty), leaving them entirely undocumented.
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 verb 'suggest' and the resource 'candidate adventures', and explains the deterministic scoring of nearby trails, parks, and campgrounds, effectively distinguishing from sibling tools that focus on individual entities.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trails.search or parks.get, nor does it specify conditions or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple search tools (search, search.global, nearMe.search) overlap significantly, potentially confusing an agent. Safety overview vs. individual alerts also cause minor ambiguity, though most resource-specific tools are distinct.
Most tools follow a consistent resource.action pattern (e.g., trails.search, parks.get). However, exceptions like 'search', 'fetch', and 'nearMe.search' break the pattern, introducing mild inconsistency.
20 tools cover the diverse outdoors domain (trails, parks, campgrounds, weather, etc.) without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count fits well.
The tool set covers the core read-only needs for outdoor trip planning, including search, detail retrieval, weather, and safety info. Minor gaps like missing state/region listing or navigation features are acceptable given the read-only scope.
