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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying real-time walk-up waits, open party slots, and booking URLs, but it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or other operational behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The examples are compact and directly support recognition of the target restaurants.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what data is returned and which domain it covers. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting the optional park filter or any freshness caveats, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining basics.

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 optional parkSlug parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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 a specific verb, 'Fetch,' and names the exact resource: real-time walk-up wait times, open party slots, and booking URLs for Disney World table-service restaurants. The examples and 'dining' scope clearly distinguish it from ride-focused siblings like get_live_waits.

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 purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. It also does not mention prerequisites or limitations, leaving usage to be inferred from the resource description.

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