status.live national parks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: 'open' is derived from published schedules rather than live conditions, and results include site counts and reservation links. It doesn't cover pagination or result ordering, so it isn't exhaustive.

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 sentences, zero waste. The result content is front-loaded and the sibling routing caveat is placed last where it belongs.

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 what comes back (open-today status, site counts, reservation links) and annotations cover the read-only profile. The missing radius/limit behavior is the only notable gap for a 5-parameter geo query.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies the point-based latitude/longitude query and the open_today_only flag, but says nothing about limit or max_km, leaving the default 100 km radius and result cap (a 5-param tool) unexplained.

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 ('NPS campgrounds nearest a point') with the scope of the query, and explicitly separates itself from nationalparks_get_park_status. An agent can distinguish it from both siblings 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?

The clause 'Schedules only: check nationalparks_get_park_status for current alerts' names an alternative and the condition that selects it, which is explicit when-not guidance. It stops short of the full 5 because it never addresses when to use this versus nationalparks_search_parks.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: data sources differ by country, live values carry an 'as-of' time, and some fields (road conditions) are only available where supported. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a public read-only status tool this is solid disclosure.

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 scoping sentence is front-loaded and the long enumerations are dense and informative rather than padding, though the US/Canada breakdown is a single sprawling sentence that could be tightened. Every clause carries selection-relevant content.

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 full burden of describing return contents, and it does so comprehensively across both countries, including the as-of freshness caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 and their defaults. The description restates the accepted park id/name formats and gives extra code examples ('banff'), but adds little semantic depth beyond the schema; the campgrounds enumeration describes returned data rather than the include_campgrounds flag. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise scope statement ('Right now at one park') and then enumerates the exact resource contents for US and Canadian parks. It is clearly distinguishable from nationalparks_search_parks (searching) and nationalparks_find_campgrounds (campground lookup), since this tool returns live conditions for a single known 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?

Usage is implied by the 'Right now' framing and the single-park scope, so an agent can infer this is for current conditions rather than discovery. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus the sibling search tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses the index boundary - which park systems and unit types are included (parks, monuments, seashores, recreation areas with campgrounds) - which materially affects whether a search will succeed. It omits pagination behavior despite a limit parameter defaulting to 25.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: scope first, searchable fields second, return handoff third. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant fact (covered park systems) 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?

There is no output schema, but the description states what comes back (ids for nationalparks_get_park_status), which is the key return-value fact an agent needs. Combined with the scope and query guidance this is nearly complete; the only missing piece is how limit/pagination affects large result sets.

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%: query is documented but limit is not. The description compensates for query by giving real examples ('yose', 'banff', 'canada', state/province names) and confirming case-insensitivity context beyond the schema string. It says nothing about limit or result truncation, so the coverage gap is only partly closed.

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/search) and resource (national parks) and pins down the data set precisely: US NPS units plus Parks Canada. It even names the downstream sibling (nationalparks_get_park_status) whose ids it produces, so an agent can distinguish it from find_campgrounds and get_park_status without opening any 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?

The description enumerates the exact query dimensions (name, park code, US state, Canadian province, 'canada'), which tells the agent when this tool's input will match. It implies the workflow link to get_park_status but never states a when-not-to-use case or an explicit alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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