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.