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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the burden. The description adds value beyond annotations: single-request batching up to ten codes, the always-present core-field set vs. optional sections, and a pointer to the NPS page for anything not covered. No contradiction with annotations; 'get' aligns with the read-only hint.

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?

A single dense paragraph where every sentence earns its place: content list, code source, batching limit, and payload trimming. It is slightly longer than the leanest ideal but sharply front-loaded with the purpose and scoping guidance, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema documents return values and annotations cover safety, the description supplies the remaining operational context: content scope, batching, code acquisition, payload control, and a fallback pointer to the NPS page. A minor gap is behavior for invalid/unknown codes, but overall the agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters are thoroughly documented: parkCode specifies format, examples, count range and batching; fields lists all enum values and the omit-for-all behavior. The description largely reiterates what the schema already states ('Get codes from nps_find_parks', 'single request'), adding little new semantic meaning beyond the structured definitions.

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 a specific verb-resource pair (get park detail by parkCode) and enumerates the full content sections returned (description, activities, topics, fees, hours, contacts, directions, weather, images, NPS page). This fully differentiates it from siblings like nps_get_alerts and nps_get_activities 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?

Provides concrete usage context: how to obtain valid codes (from nps_find_parks), that up to ten codes fetch in one request, and that the fields parameter trims payloads. It does not name explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternative siblings for cases like current alerts, but the cross-tool routing to nps_find_parks is clear and actionable.

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