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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds the two search modes and the campsite attributes, but no additional behavioral traits such as result limits, pagination, or data source caveats. No contradiction with 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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and attributes, then the key input modes. Every sentence contributes, with no filler.

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 read-only search with three optional parameters, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the resource, the two input modes, and available attributes. It doesn't mention whether facility_id and query can be combined, but the schema's 'optional' allows it, leaving a minor ambiguity. With no output schema, the return fields are partially implied by 'loop, accessibility, type, reservable.'

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 descriptions cover all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the intended relationship between facility_id and query ('or') and explaining the use case for each, which the schema alone doesn't fully convey.

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 the verb 'Search' with a precise resource, 'individual campsites (sites within a campground)', and enumerates the key attributes (loop, accessibility, type, reservable). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recreation_search_facilities and recreation_search_recareas without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

It explains two call patterns: provide facility_id for a known campground, or use query for free-text search. This gives clear operational context, but it stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this one, so it doesn't fully route the agent away from recreation_search_facilities.

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