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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the data source (RIDB) and the fields included, but it does not disclose behaviors such as error handling for invalid FacilityIDs, response size, or pagination. With the annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose, then provides a compact list of return categories. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-ID lookup with comprehensive annotations and only one parameter, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs: the identifier type, the scope (federal recreation facility), and the payload contents. It does not specify behavior for missing or invalid IDs, but given the tool's low complexity and the field list, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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%, and the schema already explains facility_id as a RIDB FacilityID with an example. The description repeats this identifier concept but adds no new semantic depth beyond reaffirming that the returned record is for that facility. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Full record for a single federal recreation facility.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling search tools (recreation_search_facilities, recreation_nearby) by emphasizing a single record retrieved by RIDB FacilityID, and it enumerates the content categories returned. This is unambiguous and differentiates the tool well.

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 the tool is for fetching a complete record when a FacilityID is already known, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like recreation_search_facilities for discovering facilities by criteria. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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