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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: results are ranked, the free tier caps at the top 3 plus a count of what the Camp Map Pass would add, and the pass raises the cap to `limit`. It omits auth/rate-limit or error behavior, but the tiering disclosure is valuable beyond structured fields.

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 dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler; each sentence carries distinct information (what it returns, free/pass caps, rental filtering). The parenthetical aside is the only slightly loose element.

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 must convey result shape, and it does cover ranking, the free 3-spot cap, the 'how many more' count, and the pass-driven limit. It stops short of describing what fields each spot record contains (signal strength, distance, access type), which leaves a minor gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by tying `limit` to the pass tier and clarifying that access=rental keeps spots on pavement or within 500 m of unpaved road, a sharper rule than the schema's 'on or near pavement'.

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 with scope qualifiers: ranked camping spots near a point that are remote but have carrier signal. This cleanly separates it from siblings like hunting_spots and check_spot, which the agent can distinguish without opening 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?

Explains the free-vs-pass result tiers and when to use access=rental (rental agreements excluding unpaved roads), which is genuine usage context. It does not, however, name alternative siblings (e.g., check_spot or plan_trip) or state when NOT to use this tool.

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