reunion_list_family_trails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists trails and discloses the data source (ONF / regional tourism), but does not mention behavioral aspects like read-only nature, pagination, or data freshness. The existence of a 'limit' parameter is not explained in the description.

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 concise at about 70 words across 4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The source attribution at the end is informative but could be integrated more succinctly.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and usage context adequately. It could be improved by clarifying the effect of the 'limit' parameter, but overall it provides sufficient contextual information.

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?

The only parameter, 'limit', is fully described in the schema (max trails, range, default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as listing 'sentiers marmailles'—family-friendly walking trails designed for parents with young children. It specifies key traits (manageable length, low elevation, points of interest) and return fields (name, length, duration, trail ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like reunion_list_hiking_circuits.

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 mentions usefulness for tourism, family planning, and accessibility studies, implying contexts for use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for general hiking) or references to alternatives among siblings, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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