alltrails_search

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses critical behaviors: exact endpoint, relevance, limit honoring, result mixing, deprecated lat/lng ignored, implicit geo bias, fallback to legacy explore, and compact mode behavior. No contradictions.

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 dense with information and every sentence adds value. It is well-structured but could be slightly more concise. Still, no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with fallback, deprecated params, mixing types, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: behavior modes, parameter caveats, and output characteristics (compact, client-side cap).

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 baseline 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema: explains lat/lng are ignored, recommends compact, explains types narrowing only with query, and confirms limit is honored.

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 states 'Search AllTrails by name' with a specific verb and resource. It explains the endpoint and relevance, and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting result mixing and fallback behavior.

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 provides when to use with or without query, suggests narrowing with types, recommends compact=true, and notes backward compatibility of lat/lng. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings but implies usage for free-text search.

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