Pota Park Activations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the ordering guarantee ('most recent first'), which is genuinely useful but stops short of noting whether inactive parks return an empty list, how stale the data is, or what an 'activation' record contains.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action and sort order come first and the intent questions follow. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety, so the definition is essentially sufficient. The only residual gap is what an empty result or a never-activated park looks like, which an agent may want before reporting to a user.

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 100%, with both 'reference' (example US-0062) and 'count' (default 10, max 50) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List recent activations of a POTA park') plus the ordering ('most recent first'), which is far more precise than the bare name. It implicitly separates itself from pota_park_info (park metadata) and pota_spots (live spots), but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 two framing questions ('when was this park last activated?' and 'is it often on the air?') give a clear trigger for calling the tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to pota_park_info / pota_park_stats for the related questions an agent might confuse with this one.

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