nps_parks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description needs to add context beyond that. It contributes useful behavioral details: the tool returns specific fields (names, descriptions, states, coordinates, weather) and that it serves as a park code discovery mechanism. This is more than the minimal scoping info, hence a 4.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return fields and use case. Zero filler words, every sentence adds information.

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 low complexity, no output schema, and complete schema descriptions, the description fully covers what the tool does and why to use it. It lists return fields and the central use case (park code discovery), making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a high-level mapping ('by state, name, or keyword') but doesn't provide additional syntax or behavioral details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('national parks'), and states the search dimensions ('by state, name, or keyword'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling NPS tools by noting it is used to 'discover park codes needed by other NPS tools.'

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 clearly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover park codes needed by other NPS tools.' This provides a clear context and rationale for preferring it over alternatives. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or 'when not to use,' but the purpose is well-scoped.

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