Get a campsite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context annotations do not carry: the explicit exclusion 'Payment settings are never returned' and a preview of the returned field set (state, currency, times, ratings, notices/policies).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope ('one campsite by slug') comes first and the field list second. The field enumeration is dense but every item is substantive information about the result.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned shape and flags the payment-settings exclusion, which an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically. It omits any note on invalid-slug behavior or the contact-detail toggle's effect, though the schema covers the latter.

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 both parameters (including include_contact_details and its redaction implications) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by slug' adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb/resource pairing ('One campsite by slug') and enumerates the returned facets, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_campsites and list_pitch_types without opening schemas.

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 singular 'One campsite by slug' implies this is the single-item lookup versus list_campsites, but the description never explicitly states when to use it or names an alternative. Usage is inferable only from the noun phrasing and the required slug parameter.

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