Parky — Park Planning

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the search corpus is limited to the current Disney/Universal release scope, and the tool deliberately excludes live wait data. It says nothing about result cardinality, ranking, or ambiguity handling when several matches exist.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then the scope constraint, then the exclusion. No filler, and both boundary statements earn their place by preventing misuse.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: when to reach for it, what it searches over, and what it does not return. It could be slightly more complete by indicating what the returned identifier looks like or how to handle misses, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and both parameters are documented in-schema (query semantics plus the optional park_id narrowing purpose), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning about query syntax, matching behavior, or what happens if both a park and ride share a name.

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 specific verb and resource — resolve a named/described park or ride to its canonical Parky ID — and explicitly bounds the scope to 'Parky's current Disney and Universal release scope.' It also distinguishes itself from the wait-times sibling by stating 'It does not retrieve current wait times.' An agent can tell this apart from parky_get_waits without opening a schema.

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 trigger condition is explicit ('when a visitor names or describes a park or ride and you need its canonical Parky ID'), and there is a clear when-not ('does not retrieve current wait times'). It does not name the sibling tools that handle waits/hours/crowds, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out, which keeps this below a 5.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is low; the description adds useful context beyond them: single-park scope, a 30-day horizon limit, and the epistemic nature of the result ('a forecast and range, not a guarantee or a live wait'). It does not mention failure modes for unsupported parks or how a range is expressed.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the usage trigger and scope front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information (trigger, prerequisite, output nature).

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 no output schema, the description compensates by characterizing the return ('forecast and range, not a guarantee or a live wait') and by covering scope, horizon, and the ID prerequisite. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it says nothing about behavior for unsupported parks or how a multi-day range is returned.

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 schema already defines date, days, and park_id; baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning by reinforcing the park-local time zone framing and the 'resolve the park ID first' dependency, which signals that park_id is a foreign key resolved via parky_find_experience rather than an arbitrary string.

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 names a concrete operation on a concrete resource: a crowd forecast for one supported park over the next 30 park-local days, and clarifies the output is a forecast/range. It partially rules out a sibling by contrasting with a 'live wait' (parky_get_waits), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from parky_get_hours or parky_find_experience.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition ('when a visitor asks how crowded one supported park may be') plus a prerequisite ('Resolve the park ID first'), and bounds the horizon to 30 park-local days. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for live waits, so the when-not is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data is a reported schedule the operator may change (volatility), and Early Entry is an eligibility-based window rather than a ticketed event, which shapes how the result should be interpreted.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, and each sentence carries domain-relevant information (prerequisite, category semantics, data volatility). No filler, though the Early Entry clarification is fairly niche for the general case.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does well to signal what the return contains (schedule windows with guest-facing categories and labels). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage of inputs, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; only the exact output shape remains unspecified.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description adds only the 'seven park-local days' scope that mirrors the days maximum. The 'park-local' and 'resolve park ID first' hints are useful but marginal against a fully documented schema, 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?

The description states a concrete verb (get) and resource (operating hours for one supported park) with an explicit scope (next seven park-local days), plus the title reinforces it. It does not name any sibling, but the resource domain (hours vs. waits vs. crowd outlook vs. find_experience) is distinct enough that an agent can route correctly.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition ('use this when a visitor asks about operating hours') and a prerequisite ('resolve the park ID first'), which is genuine usage guidance. It does not name a specific alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the 30-minute freshness limit and the absence of prediction. It does not describe return format or pagination, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the use case and prerequisites before the limitations. The negative statements ('unavailable, not current' and 'does not predict future waits') slightly overlap, keeping it just below full marks.

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, non-open-world tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations declaring safety, the description covers trigger, prerequisite, and limitations. Return value structure is not described, but no output schema exists, so an agent could benefit from knowing the shape of results.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the sequencing hint 'Resolve the park ID first' and nothing about formats or edge cases beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('current posted ride waits or operating status') and scopes it to 'one supported park', which is clear. It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from siblings like parky_get_hours or parky_get_crowd_outlook, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives clear context for use ('when a visitor asks for current posted ride waits or operating status') and a prerequisite ('Resolve the park ID first'), plus boundary conditions (waits older than 30 minutes unavailable; no future waits). It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool to use for future predictions.

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