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.