Ranger

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/open-world, but the description goes further by disclosing the epistemic contract: it 'reports what was CHECKED and what is unknown separately, so absence of a warning is never presented as an all-clear.' This is critical behavioral context an agent cannot derive from annotations and directly shapes how the result should be interpreted.

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?

Front-loaded with the data coverage and return value, then the usage triggers, then the interpretive caveat. Dense but each sentence earns its place; the opening enumeration is long, though it is doing real disambiguation work.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the 0-100 score and explains the checked-vs-unknown split. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the two coordinates, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

The schema documents both parameters at 100% coverage with valid ranges, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

Specifies the verb (check), resource (live safety conditions), and the exact data domains covered: wildfire perimeters, streamflow vs seasonal normals, weather advisories, closures, and air quality. It also names the concrete output (a 0-100 Trip Safety Score), which cleanly separates it from the sibling discovery tools find_campgrounds and find_trails.

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?

Explicitly enumerates trigger conditions — 'whenever someone asks whether a place is safe to visit, whether a fire or smoke is affecting it, whether a trail or road is closed, or whether a river is runnable.' This is a near-complete routing rule with no inference required.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so this dimension is about added context. The description contributes that results include reservability, a booking link, and the campground's own page to read conditions next, which is genuinely useful output-shape context. It says nothing about result limits or error behavior.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct load: capability/scope, when to call it, and what comes back. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value disclosure and does so well (reservable flag, booking link, campground page for follow-up), and annotations cover the safety profile. It is slightly thin on result volume or pagination expectations for a radius search, but nothing needed to invoke correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents latitude, longitude, radius default/max, and reservable_only defaults. The description only paraphrases the coordinate-and-radius concept and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb and resource with scope ('Find campgrounds within a radius of a coordinate across federal, state and private land') and even names what it returns (reservable status, booking link). It does not explicitly name its siblings find_trails or check_conditions, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the tool name.

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?

'Call this when someone asks where to camp near a place' gives a clear triggering condition for the agent. No exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g., a nearby-place vs. named-campground search) are offered, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: results are ranked by data completeness rather than raw length, specifically so service roads and sidewalks are deprioritized, and it discloses what fields come back. It omits result-count 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the ranking rationale and the usage trigger. The clause about service roads and sidewalks is slightly ornamental but does concretely justify the ranking choice, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields (distance, elevation gain, route shape). Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents all three parameters. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and what happens when no trails are known in the radius.

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 100%, with latitude/longitude ranges and the radius default (25) and max (100) all documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own wording, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Find named hiking trails') plus the scope ('within a radius of a coordinate') and the ranking rule. The resource is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools check_conditions and find_campgrounds, so an agent can route on the description alone.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger: 'Call this when someone asks what to hike near a place.' That is clear positive guidance. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., pointing to find_campgrounds for overnight sites or check_conditions for weather).

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