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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds a useful behavioral detail—the response includes specific fields like campsite IDs, names, type, loop, reservability, and type of use—but it does not disclose pagination behavior, that limit caps at 50, or whether some campsites may be omitted by default. The added value beyond annotations is moderate.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a compact example. The first sentence states what the tool does and what it returns. The example is genuinely illustrative rather than filler. No wasted words, and the most important operational detail (FacilityID) is front-loaded.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description explains the resource scope, the key parameter, and the expected return contents, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It does not explain limit defaults or API key implications in the description, but those are already covered in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. A small gap is that the 'type of use' field is named generically without an example value, but this is minor.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by showing a concrete example call (list_campsites({ facility_id: "232447" })) and by naming the return fields, which implicitly reinforces that facility_id is the primary input. The description does not repeat verbose parameter details, so this is a reasonable supplement to the schema rather than a redundant restatement.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('individual campsites within a Recreation.gov facility'), identifies the key parameter (FacilityID), and enumerates the concrete return fields (campsite IDs, names, type, loop, reservability, type of use). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like search_facilities or get_facility, which operate at a different level of granularity.

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 makes the target resource explicit ('within a Recreation.gov facility (campground) by FacilityID') and the example shows a realistic call shape. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when an agent should NOT use it or when to prefer e.g. search_facilities or get_facility, but the context signals plus the clear scoping make the intended usage fairly evident.

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