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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that results are limited to Parky's current Disney and Universal release scope and that wait times are not returned. It does not say how matching behaves (exact vs. fuzzy), how ambiguity is returned, or what shape the result takes, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition, followed by the sibling exclusion, the scope constraint, and the non-capability. Every sentence carries routing or scoping information; there is no filler.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and domain scope well. The remaining gap is that it never indicates what a successful result contains (IDs plus names? a list of candidates?), which an agent would need to interpret an ambiguous match.

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 and a 3 baseline applies. The phrase 'names or describes a ride' hints that the query is matched loosely rather than as an exact ID, but the optional park_id narrowing parameter is never mentioned in the description, so no meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 or described ride/park to its Parky ID, plus check park coverage. It also explicitly separates this tool from 'park tools', which take a park name directly, so an agent can distinguish it from parky_list_parks or parky_get_park_ride without opening schemas.

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 positive trigger (visitor names or describes a ride and you need the ID) and an explicit negative rule (skip this for park tools, which accept a park name directly), plus a scoping exclusion (no current wait times). The alternatives are described by category rather than named siblings like parky_get_waits or parky_list_parks, so routing is slightly inferential.

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