rec_areas

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying the search dimensions (keyword, state) and the return payload ('Returns area names, descriptions, and locations'). This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the data scope, although it does not discuss edge cases or limitations, which is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences deliver purpose, scope, and return info. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy or 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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, the conceptual hierarchy, and the return fields. It lacks details like default ordering or pagination behavior, but the schema covers limit/offset, and the read-only nature is annotated. Complete enough for low-complexity tool.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds conceptual clarity by linking 'keyword' and 'state' to the search behavior, but does not provide additional syntactic or value-level detail beyond what the schema gives. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search federal recreation areas by keyword or state.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (federal recreation areas), and explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting that 'Recreation areas are larger regions that may contain multiple facilities,' which differentiates it from rec_facilities and rec_campsites.

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 implies usage context by stating the tool searches by keyword or state and that recreation areas are larger regions. This hints that for specific facilities, one should use a facilities tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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