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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: the data is public, certain content types are absent by design (no UGC reviews/check-ins) with an explicit anti-fabrication instruction, and a found=false outcome is possible. These are meaningful traits beyond the annotation, though it says nothing about failure modes other than not-found or about response shape beyond the field list.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource scope and packed with only actionable content; nothing is redundant. The telegraphic, arrow-and-semicolon style is dense and slightly harder to parse than prose, but every clause earns its place.

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 takes on the job of describing returned fields and does so, plus a not-found path, so an agent knows what to expect. It leaves minor gaps about whether related news needs a separate call (list_park_news exists) and about response size, but is otherwise sufficient for a single-parameter read 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?

Only one parameter (id, a park cuid) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or ID-resolution guidance beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 (public read of park detail) and enumerates exactly what fields come back: address, coordinates, operator, policies, member sources, news. It also draws the boundary against adjacent capabilities (no UGC reviews, no check-ins) and names the sibling tools (list_parks, get_company) it sequences with, so an agent can distinguish it from list_parks/list_park_news without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow (list_parks → detail → get_company) and a fallback route when the lookup fails (found=false → search city policies), which is real routing guidance tied to a named alternative. It does not spell out a 'do not use this when...' case beyond the field-scope exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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