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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: facts vary per ride and missing facts are omitted rather than guessed, telling the agent how to interpret partial results and that no fabrication occurs.

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 usage trigger, followed by the prerequisite and the data-quality caveat. The fact enumeration is long but earns its place by defining scope; only the ride-ID instruction mildly duplicates the schema.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what facts come back, and how missing data is handled. The only residual ambiguity is the boundary with parky_get_lightning_lane for Lightning Lane questions, which is not addressed.

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% for the single ride_id parameter, and the schema already states it is a canonical Parky ride ID from parky_find_experience. The description's 'Resolve the ride ID first' reinforces but does not extend that information, so the 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('get ride facts') and enumerates the exact fact set (height requirement, ride length, top speed, drop, ride type, land, Lightning Lane) so the agent knows the scope precisely. This distinguishes it from siblings like parky_get_waits, parky_get_ride_reliability, and parky_get_lightning_lane 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?

'Use this when a visitor asks about a ride itself' gives clear triggering context, and 'Resolve the ride ID first' supplies the prerequisite step. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool for overlapping topics (Lightning Lane details are also served by parky_get_lightning_lane), so routing is implied rather than stated.

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