List campsites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of the return payload and the important conditional that contact details appear only with include_contact_details. It still omits pagination/limit behavior, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the returned-field list and then the conditional contact-details rule. Efficient with no filler, though the field enumeration reads as a packed list.

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, enumerating returned fields is genuinely useful and largely compensates. The remaining gap is the undocumented max_results/pagination behavior, which an agent needs to call the tool correctly with more than the default 100 results.

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 50%: include_contact_details is documented in the schema and the description restates its effect, adding little. max_results (default 100, max 500) is documented nowhere, so half the parameters carry no semantic guidance. Baseline 3 reflects that the schema does half the work and the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 resource (the campsites on this Pitchup account) and enumerates the fields returned (slug, name, state, currency, categories, pitch type IDs, availability). It is a specific verb+resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_campsite or list other list_* 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 scope 'on this Pitchup account' implies when to reach for this tool (listing all campsites on the account), and the conditional note on include_contact_details guides one option. But there is no explicit when-not or named alternative such as get_campsite for a single record.

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