status.live campgrounds

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lowered, and the description still adds real value: data freshness (Forest Service statuses refreshed every 6 hours), the source of each agency's open/closed determination, and the meaning of the ambiguous 'not listed' value. It does not cover rate limits or result ordering beyond 'nearest'.

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 core capability and return fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences earn their place by disambiguating status semantics. Slightly dense, but no filler or repetition.

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 does the work of naming the returned fields (distance, open today, booking link) and explaining status provenance and freshness. Gaps remain around distance units, result limiting, and what happens when nothing falls within the radius, but the essential contract is conveyed.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It names latitude/longitude and implies open_today_only via 'whether each is open today', but says nothing about limit or max_km (radius in km, defaults, caps), leaving two filters completely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (find campgrounds) plus a precise scope: nearest a latitude/longitude across NPS and Forest Service lands. It clearly reads as a proximity search, but it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling nationalparks_find_campgrounds or campgrounds_search, so the agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is implied by the geographic framing ('nearest a latitude/longitude'), which tells the agent this is the proximity path rather than a name search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to the sibling tools it overlaps with (campgrounds_search, nationalparks_find_campgrounds).

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the differing authority for NPS vs Forest Service status, a 6-hour refresh cadence, and the exact meaning of the 'not listed' value. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the 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?

The what-is-returned clause is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information (input forms, data sources, status semantics). Dense but no sentence is redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing the response and does so by enumerating open status, season, booking path, fees, rules, page, and weather, plus caveats on status sourcing. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret 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 the single parameter is already documented as 'Campground id or name'. The description adds only an example id ('upper-pines'), which is marginal value over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('One campground: whether it is open today, the season, how to book it...') and enumerates the return contents. The phrase 'One campground' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search/find tools that operate over many.

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 singular scope implies this is the detail lookup to use after searching, and it explains what inputs it takes (id or name). It never explicitly names an alternative like campgrounds_search for discovery, so routing guidance is clear but not fully spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior beyond that: NPS status derives from the park's published schedule, Forest Service status from each forest's list refreshed every 6 hours, and 'not listed' is explicitly defined as unknown rather than closed. That is meaningful interpretation guidance.

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-loads the core capability and the follow-up-tool pointer, then uses the remaining space for status semantics. The status paragraph is dense but each clause carries distinct information; no filler.

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 does explain the interesting return content (open-today flag, booking link, ids). It is nearly complete, though it omits pagination/limit behavior for a search that defaults to 25 and caps at 100.

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 only 33%, and the description largely mirrors the query parameter semantics already in the schema. It adds concrete value examples for query but says nothing about limit or open_today_only, so the low-coverage params remain undocumented.

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 (Find) and resource (NPS/Forest Service campgrounds) and enumerates the accepted lookup keys, including concrete examples. It also names the downstream sibling campgrounds_get_status, so an agent can distinguish it from the other campground tools 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?

The description creates a clear chain to campgrounds_get_status for id-based follow-ups, which is useful routing. However, it never explains when to prefer this over campgrounds_find_near or nationalparks_find_campgrounds, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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