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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely new context: answers are persisted alongside the forecast that was given, and a Camp Map Pass key is required. It does not address what happens on a stale/duplicate token, which is the main behavioral unknown for a non-idempotent write.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the storage action and its three answer domains are front-loaded, followed by the persistence note and auth requirement. Nothing is repeated from the title.

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 4-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required token, answer domains, persistence, and auth. The only meaningful gap is error/re-submission behavior on invalid or reused tokens, which an agent would want before calling.

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 only 25% (token only), so the description carries real weight and delivers: it explains token provenance ('followup.token from the plan_trip answer'), gives camped as a yes/no, and lists the signal and road enum values. It adds meaning beyond the raw enum lists, though it doesn't restate field types or which parameters are optional vs required.

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 ('Stores the user's answers') and enumerates the exact three post-trip questions captured. The tie to 'plan_trip (its followup token)' separates it cleanly from ambiguous siblings like report_conditions or road_reports, which are not trip-token-scoped.

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?

Clearly states the triggering context ('after a trip planned with plan_trip') and the required artifact (the followup token), so an agent knows when this tool applies. It never names an alternative or a when-not case, though, leaving the boundary with report_conditions/road_reports to inference.

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