recreation.search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the tool searches and filters; it does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the source and resources, then lists filters concisely. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and basic filters, but lacks details on output format, pagination (offset, limit) behavior, error handling, or expected response structure. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 low (10%). The description adds value by summarizing filters (query, state, activity ID, lat/lon + radius) and listing resources, but does not explain each parameter's format or behavior (e.g., what 'state' expects, how latitude/longitude are used). It partially compensates but not fully.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as searching the Recreation Information Database (RIDB) for federal recreation data. It lists specific resource types (recareas, facilities, etc.) and mentions available filters. This is specific and distinctive, especially given that sibling tools are unrelated.

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 implicitly states when to use: for federal recreation information across multiple agencies. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the sibling list shows no competing recreation tools, so usage context is clear.

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