Atlas of Plant Based: PCT data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (leg, towns, passes, lakes with miles), but it does not explain the effect of the 'limit' parameter or how many nearby features are returned by default.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The input condition is stated first, followed by the return contents, making it easy to scan.

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 two-parameter lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. However, it omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter, which affects the result set, leaving a meaningful gap in completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially clarifies the 'mile' parameter by restating its range (0 to 2656.4), but that duplicates the schema's minimum/maximum and does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all—its default of 4, maximum of 10, or what it controls (number of nearby features) are left 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 states a specific input ('PCT trail mile') and a concrete return set ('the leg it falls in and the nearest towns, passes and lakes with their miles'), which clearly identifies the tool's operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_pct_leg or list_pct_points, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by the phrase 'Given a PCT trail mile' and the return contents, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_pct_leg or list_pct_points. No exclusions or alternative routing instructions are provided.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and closed-world, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds genuine domain context — that a leg is a resupply-to-resupply segment, that the dataset is the 2021 walk, and that the response includes miles, length, days, dates, and a page reference.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the scoping fact (one of 26 legs). Nothing is wasted, though it could be slightly more scannable if the returned fields were separated from the definition.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields. For a one-parameter read-only lookup, that is nearly everything an agent needs; only retrieval specifics like missing-leg behavior are absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 1–26 range with Campo/Canada endpoints. The description adds only that the legs correspond to the 2021 walk; it offers no further disambiguation of the `leg` parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description identifies the resource precisely: a single PCT leg out of 26 walked in 2021, with the fields it carries. The verb is implicit (carried by the title 'Get a PCT leg'), and it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like find_by_trail_mile, but an agent can tell this is a leg-number lookup.

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: you'd call this when you have a leg number between 1 and 26. There is no statement of when to prefer this over find_by_trail_mile or list_pct_points, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful output context (trail mile, coordinates, height) but says nothing about defaults, pagination, or what happens when no filter is supplied, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 with the resource and return fields front-loaded, and no filler. It could be tightened further by naming a verb and dropping the redundant filter clause.

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 usefully enumerates the fields returned, which is the main completeness risk for a list tool. It falls short only on default behavior (e.g., returning all points when unfiltered) and result-size/pagination expectations.

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 coverage is 50%: 'section' is documented in the schema and 'kind' is self-describing via its enum, so the description's 'filter by kind or section' largely echoes structured data. It also arguably mislabels the space by saying 'lakes' while the enum value is 'water', adding slight confusion rather than clarity.

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?

Names the resource (PCT points: towns, passes, lakes, peaks) and the returned attributes (trail mile, coordinates, height in feet), so an agent knows exactly what it lists. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_pct_leg or find_by_trail_mile, leaving a small ambiguity about when this list tool is the right pick.

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 only usage signal is 'Filter by kind or section,' which describes the parameters rather than when to choose this tool over find_by_trail_mile or get_pct_leg. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds useful context: it discloses returned fields (what each stop carries, mailing advice, last-checked date), but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or pagination.

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 tight sentences: the first lists exactly what the tool returns, the second states the two lookup modes. No filler, and the value proposition is front-loaded.

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 read-only, zero-required-param lookup with no output schema, the description covers what's returned and how to query it. The only gap is the underspecified fromMile/toMile semantics that the schema leaves blank.

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 coverage is 33%, with toMile and fromMile carrying no descriptions. The description clarifies that town accepts partial names and that mile filtering is a range search, partially compensating, but it leaves the mileage semantics (inclusive bounds, units) 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?

States a specific noun-resource (vegan resupply options at PCT towns/stores) with the exact data fields returned, distinguishing it from generic trail tools like list_pct_points or get_pct_leg.

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?

Explains the two access patterns (search by town name, or by mile range), which gives clear context for when to use it. It doesn't name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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