rec_facilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it returns facility names, types, locations, and IDs, and explains how to use those IDs downstream with rec_campsites. This goes beyond simple read-only labeling.

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 sentences deliver the essential information without redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second covers filters, and the third explains return values and next steps. No wasted words.

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 search tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains scope, filtering options, return fields, and cross-tool usage. Pagination is already documented in the schema, so no additional detail is needed.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema is the primary source. The description reinforces the filter parameters (keyword, state, activity) but does not add new constraints or clarify formatting beyond what the schema already provides.

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 federal recreation facilities' and lists concrete examples (campgrounds, parks, trails, lakes). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling rec_campsites by noting facility IDs should be used there next.

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 gives clear filtering context (keyword, state, activity type) and explicitly ties results to rec_campsites via IDs. It does not state when not to use the tool or contrast with rec_areas, but the relationship to rec_campsites is a strong usage signal.

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