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.