rec_campsites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing return fields ('campsite names, types, loops, and accessibility info'), but does not disclose potential limitations like pagination or error behavior. With annotations covering the core read-only nature, the description provides an average amount of extra behavioral context.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct role: action, usage prerequisite, and output summary. It front-loads the primary purpose and wastes no words, making it efficiently scannable for an AI agent.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to use it (via rec_facilities), and what it returns. It omits details like default limits or error cases, but those are either in the schema or not critical for basic invocation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 already describes both parameters (facility_id and limit) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces the meaning of facility_id by telling users to obtain it from rec_facilities, but that info also appears in the schema. Thus it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters without going beyond.

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 states a specific action ('Search available campsites') on a specific resource ('a specific recreation facility'), and clarifies the scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing 'rec_facilities' for finding facility IDs, implying this tool is for facility-level campsite lookup.

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?

It explicitly instructs the user to 'Use rec_facilities first to find facility IDs', providing a clear prerequisite and workflow. However, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., nps_campgrounds) or exclusions, so it falls short of fully 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.