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 listing the data categories returned (wait times, status, trends, downtime flags) and the park scope. It does not disclose return format, pagination, freshness cadence, or rate-limit behavior, so it remains a moderate addition over annotations.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every phrase carries useful scope or data-category information, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what it fetches, where it applies, and what categories of data it covers. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at the response structure or data freshness, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 with examples. The description's list of park names provides scope context but does not add syntax, filtering behavior, or other semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly identifies the resource: real-time attraction wait times, status, trends, and downtime flags. It also names the covered parks, making the scope unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_outages_and_reopens or get_headliners_alpha, so it falls 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, nor does it state when not to use it. 'Real-time' implies a live-data context, but there is no mention of related tools, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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