status.live national parks

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld=false safety, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: the open flag comes from published schedules rather than live alerts, and results carry site counts and reservation links. That is useful beyond the structured fields, though no pagination or ordering behavior is disclosed.

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 tight sentences, zero waste: what is returned is front-loaded and the routing caveat follows immediately. Nothing to trim.

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 usefully enumerates the return payload (open-today, site counts, reservation links) and the schedule-vs-alert caveat. The gap is parameter coverage — limit and max_km defaults/ranges are never surfaced.

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 params, so the description must compensate. It implies the latitude/longitude point ("nearest a point") and the open_today_only flag ("open today by its published schedule"), but says nothing about limit or max_km, leaving two params — including the distance radius — 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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: NPS campgrounds nearest a point, with the fields returned (open-today status, site counts, reservation links). It differentiates from nationalparks_get_park_status by contrast, but it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling campgrounds_find_near, which is a real ambiguity for selection.

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?

Explicitly scopes the tool ("Schedules only") and routes the agent elsewhere for a different need (nationalparks_get_park_status for current alerts). Clear context with one exclusion, though it never addresses the campgrounds_find_near / campgrounds_search overlap.

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it distinguishes live components (which carry an as-of time) from static ones and discloses the upstream sources (NPS alerts, NWS, AQI, satellite hotspots, etc.), which is meaningful behavioral detail.

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 scope ('Right now at one park') and then a dense but purposeful enumeration of the data returned; nearly every clause conveys actionable coverage information. It runs long, but the length is justified rather than padding.

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 conveying return content, and it does so thoroughly — listing alerts, weather, air quality, fire, roads, campground/visitor-center schedules, webcams, sun/moon, and forecast per country. Nothing an agent needs to decide and call it is missing.

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 both parameters. The description restates that a park id or name is accepted with examples, but adds nothing about include_campgrounds or any format nuance beyond 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 (get) and resource (park status) and goes further by enumerating exactly what 'status' aggregates for US vs Canadian parks. This cleanly separates it from siblings like themeparks_get_park_status and ski_get_resort_status, and pins down the single-park live scope with 'Right now at one park.'

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 phrase 'Right now at one park' implies this is for live current conditions at one location, which implicitly routes a park-level query here rather than to search tools. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names any alternative (e.g. nationalparks_search_parks for discovery), leaving the routing to inference.

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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: exactly which park systems are in scope and that returned ids feed nationalparks_get_park_status. It omits pagination/limit behavior and result-count semantics, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences: scope/coverage first, then search axes and the handoff tool. Zero filler and nothing redundant with the name or 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills that gap by stating that ids are returned and what they are for. The only missing piece for correct invocation is guidance on the limit parameter and truncation behavior, which is minor for a read-only search.

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 50% (limit is undocumented anywhere), so the description must compensate – and it does for query, adding concrete park-code examples ('yose', 'banff') and the special 'canada' token that the schema does not mention. The limit parameter's default/max remain unexplained, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('Find the national parks this server covers') and immediately scopes coverage to US NPS units and Parks Canada, which cleanly separates it from themeparks_search_parks and ski_search_resorts. It also names the downstream tool (nationalparks_get_park_status) that consumes the ids.

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 enumerates the supported search axes (name, park id, US state, Canadian province, 'canada') and ties the output to a next step. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling searches, but the coverage statement implicitly does the routing.

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