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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the 30-day horizon, park-local time, and the caveat that results are estimates rather than guarantees. It does not discuss rate limits, payload size, or what happens for dates outside the window.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the prerequisite, then the return contents and caveat. The first sentence is dense but carries real information; nothing is redundant.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned components and noting the park-local timezone and estimate caveat. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (invalid ride, out-of-range date) is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the date range and ride ID sources. The description reinforces the 30-day constraint and the ride-resolution order but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('when to ride') and explains exactly what the tool produces: hourly predicted waits with bounds, weekday baselines, and best/worst windows. The word 'predicted' implicitly separates it from actual-wait siblings like parky_get_waits, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition (a visitor asking when to ride to avoid long waits on a specific day) plus a hard prerequisite: 'Resolve the ride ID first.' It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions, e.g. pointing to actual-wait or crowd-outlook tools for other questions.

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