Search individual campsites (sites within a campground): loop, accessibility, type, reservable. Provide facility_id to list sites within a known campground, or query to free-text search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (1-50, default 10). | |
| query | No | Free-text match on campsite name. Optional. | |
| facility_id | No | RIDB FacilityID to list campsites within. Optional. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds functional context about how searches are scoped, but does not disclose behavior like result ordering, empty-result behavior, or whether combining facility_id and query is supported. Given the annotations carry the burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 filler. Every clause adds relevant information: what is searched, what attributes matter, and how to invoke the two search modes. It is appropriately compact for a low-complexity tool.
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?
The tool has only three optional parameters, all documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety and idempotence. The description sufficiently explains both invocation paths. A small gap is that it doesn't mention what happens with zero parameters or describe the output shape, but no output schema exists and the use case is straightforward.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters: facility_id targets a known campground while query is free-text, and 'or' implies they are alternative search modes. This helps an agent choose which parameter to supply beyond the schema's individual descriptions.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search individual campsites (sites within a campground)'. This clearly separates the tool from sibling campground/facility search tools like recreation_search_facilities and recreation_search_recareas. It also lists relevant site attributes (loop, accessibility, type, reservable), making the object of the search concrete.
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 gives two explicit usage modes: provide facility_id to list sites within a known campground, or use query for free-text search. This is clear operational guidance for an agent. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools overlap heavily across domains: caselaw_search vs court_case_search vs court_opinion_search, caselaw_citation_lookup vs court_citation_resolver, and a cluster of company due-diligence tools (company_trust_check, counterparty_risk_score, entity_dossier, issuer_diligence_dossier, kyb_aml_evidence_case_file) that all screen a company for sanctions/risk/standing. With 290 tools, an agent will frequently face multiple equally plausible choices for the same user intent.
The vast majority of tools follow a clean domain-prefix + snake_case pattern (census_, eia_, fmcsa_, npi_, cfpb_, etc.), but there are notable exceptions: entity_resolve and resolve_entity are reversed duplicates, reg_search (Federal Register) sits next to reg_cfr_search (CFR) with confusingly similar names, and carrier_monitor_recheck deviates from the carrier_vetting_* family.
290 tools is an extreme count under any rubric, far exceeding even the 50+ threshold for the lowest score. While the group-filtering mechanism and meta-tools like list_tool_groups and search_available_datasets mitigate the practical burden, the raw surface is still massively oversized for an agent to select from accurately and efficiently.
For a read-only data-aggregation server, coverage is remarkably comprehensive across 59 domains, and generic fallbacks like cdc_dataset_query, eia_series_lookup, fred_observations, and bls_series prevent most dead ends. Minor gaps exist (a single GitHub tool, demo-only property_lookup coverage, no write/update operations anywhere), but the stated data-access purpose is well served.