pota_location_parks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it lists parks, with no mention of authentication, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 a single concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. No extraneous information or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, has output schema), the description covers the core functionality adequately. It could be improved by mentioning the output format briefly, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden. Slightly lacking in usage guidance, but otherwise complete for a straightforward list tool.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter location, with an example and description. The tool description adds context ('state, province, or country') that aligns with the schema's examples, but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 action (list), the resource (POTA parks), and the scope (in a state, province, or country). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pota_nearby_parks (which likely uses proximity) and pota_park_info (single park details).

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 implies usage for regional queries but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pota_nearby_parks for proximity). No guidance on prerequisites or limitations.

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