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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the marginal bar is low, and the description adds real value: it discloses that facts vary by ride and missing facts are omitted rather than guessed, and that live wait / 30-day reliability are conditional ('when available'). It does not describe units or formatting of returned facts, but the partial-response behavior is the important disclosure and it is present.

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, squarely front-loaded: trigger first, payload contents second, conditional fields third, and the no-guessing caveat last. No sentence restates the title or the parameter schema without adding context.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the fact categories plus the two dynamic fields and flagging that responses are partial. Combined with the single well-documented parameter and the read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the basline would be 3; the description earns the extra point by adding the 'resolve the ride ID first' prerequisite, which tells the agent to obtain the ID from a discovery tool rather than fabricate one. The name-or-slug fallback is already handled in the schema, so no further credit there.

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 resource (a ride's static facts) and enumerates the exact attributes returned: height requirement, ride length, top speed, biggest drop, ride type, land, Lightning Lane, plus live wait and 30-day reliability. That enumeration lets an agent separate it from wait-focused or history-focused siblings without opening the 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when a visitor asks about a ride itself') and gives a prerequisite workflow step ('Resolve the ride ID first'). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it — e.g. that pure wait-time questions belong to parky_get_waits and outage questions to parky_get_ride_outages — which matters because this tool overlaps those domains.

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