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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — output parity with parky_get_ride_facts — but says nothing about what happens when the ride name is ambiguous within the park or absent from it, and offers no return-shape hint (no output schema exists).

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?

A single sentence with the selection condition front-loaded before the mechanics, so the agent can stop reading once it recognizes the scenario. Slightly dense but free of 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 tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition supplies the selection rationale and output expectation. The only soft spot is that 'same answer as parky_get_ride_facts' depends on the agent knowing that sibling, and error/not-found behavior is unstated.

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% and both parameters are documented in detail, including accepted park shorthands and where ride IDs come from. The description's mention of ID, name or slug resolution merely restates what the schema already spells out, so 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('finds the ride by ID, name or slug within one park') and frames the disambiguating scenario where a ride exists at multiple parks, which separates it from the park-wide siblings. The trailing clause 'returns the same answer as parky_get_ride_facts' is a little ambiguous about why the tool exists separately, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 states an explicit trigger: use when a visitor names a ride that exists at more than one park, and it names the sibling whose output it mirrors. It stops short of stating the negative case (use parky_get_ride_facts when the ride is unambiguous), so the agent must infer the routing rule rather than read it.

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