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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes something the annotations do not: it enumerates the returned fields (parks, time zone, aliases), which is valuable precisely because no output schema exists. It says nothing about behavior for an unknown or ambiguous resort key, which is the remaining gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with a use-condition and the return content, with no filler or repetition. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description plus the rich schema description is nearly sufficient, and listing the returned fields compensates for the missing output schema. Only the error/ambiguity behavior for an unrecognized resort name is left 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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already lists example keys, canonical IDs, names and shorthands (wdw, dlr, uor, ush). The description adds no additional meaning about accepted input formats, so the schema does all the work here.

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 specific resource (one resort) and enumerates what it returns: parks, time zone and aliases. The word "one" implicitly separates it from parky_list_resorts, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase "Use this when you need one resort's..." gives a clear triggering condition for the tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming parky_list_resorts as the alternative for enumerating multiple resorts, so exclusions are absent.

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