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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful context that results span six federal agencies (open-world breadth), but says nothing about result count behavior, default limits, or empty-result handling.

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: capability and scope first, filter options second. No filler and every clause carries information.

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, filter-based search with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (facility types), where it searches (six agencies), and the filter dimensions. It could optionally note result limits or how to drill into a single facility via recreation_facility_detail.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same filters (name, state, activity) and gives activity examples ('CAMPING', 'FISHING', 'HIKING') without adding format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource ('Search US federal recreation facilities') and enumerates the facility types and agencies covered, so the scope is concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like recreation_search_campsites or recreation_search_recareas.

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 usage by naming filterable fields (name, state, activity), but never says when to pick this tool over recreation_search_campsites, recreation_search_recareas, or recreation_facility_detail. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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