nc_get_gr_trail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not state whether it is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or any limitations (e.g., only supports the 'nord' province). The description adds no transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. The core action ('Get GR information') is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides useful contextual background about NC's trails. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It tells the agent what the tool does but does not specify what 'trail information' includes (e.g., trail names, lengths, difficulty). Without an output schema, the agent would benefit from a note on the return format, but the description is not severely deficient.

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 the single 'province' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its enum, default, and description. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('GR hiking trail information'), and adds context that NC has two famous trails. It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings (no other trail-related tools exist), but does not specify what information is returned (e.g., names, distances), so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there are no sibling tools for trails, the description does not mention any exclusions or selection criteria. An agent must infer from the name that it is the trail-info tool; no usage context is given.

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