Check Availability

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about what gets returned ('detailed site-level', 'capacity context') that annotations don't cover, but lacks details on error cases, rate limits, or behavior when no spots are available.

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?

Single efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb 'Check'. Each phrase ('detailed site-level', 'spot types', 'capacity context') adds distinct value without redundancy.

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?

Decent coverage for a 6-parameter tool: establishes domain (park availability) and hints at filtering capabilities. However, fails to document the park identification XOR requirement and omits the group_size parameter entirely, which are significant gaps given the 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?

Schema coverage is low (33%). The description implicitly covers park (id/name), dates, and spot_type by mentioning them, but completely omits group_size and fails to explain the critical oneOf constraint requiring either park_id OR park_name. Partial compensation for schema gaps.

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 uses specific verb 'Check' with resource 'site-level availability' and scope 'specific park and date range'. It distinguishes from search_parks by requiring a specific park and adds value by mentioning 'spot types' and 'capacity context'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling find_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?

Implies usage by stating 'specific park' (suggesting prior park identification needed vs search_parks), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus find_campsites or find_open_weekends. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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