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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safe read operation. The description adds that it uses Meilisearch when available, which is useful context about search engine dependency. No additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are provided, keeping score at a 3.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key behavioral detail. No redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers scope and a notable implementation detail. Missing: behavior when Meilisearch is not available and return format, but overall acceptable.

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%, but the parameters (q and limit) are self-explanatory from their names and types. The description does not elaborate on their purpose or format, leaving a gap for detailed meaning. A 2 reflects the lack of explicit parameter guidance.

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 tool performs a global search across multiple types of resources (trails, parks, campgrounds, water bodies), using a specific verb and resource enumeration. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like parks.search and campgrounds.search by covering all categories at once.

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 implies usage when a cross-category search is needed, and the sibling tools provide clear alternatives for category-specific searches. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention conditions like when Meilisearch is unavailable.

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