nps_campgrounds

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, so the description doesn't repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by listing the return fields (names, descriptions, reservation info, site counts, coordinates) and the supported filter dimensions. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short, information-dense sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by return fields and filter options. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity of a search tool with four optional parameters, the description covers the core aspects: what is searched, what is returned, and how to filter. It lacks pagination or sorting details, but the limit parameter in the schema signals pagination, and the overall context is reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear per-parameter descriptions (limit, query, state, park_code). The description mentions 'park code, state, or keyword' but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This is a baseline 3 since the schema carries the load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search campgrounds in national parks.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling NPS tools (nps_parks, nps_alerts, nps_events) and recreation.gov campground tools (rec_campsites) by focusing on NPS campgrounds, and it lists the specific data returned and available filters.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to search for campgrounds specifically within national parks, with filters by park code, state, or keyword. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined enough that an agent can infer when this is the appropriate tool.

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