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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, that times are usually only published for today, which sets expectations about sparse future data. It stops there, saying nothing about the shape of results or what an empty response means.

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?

Two sentences, with the triggering condition front-loaded ahead of the availability caveat, and no redundant restatement of the tool name or parameters. Every sentence carries distinct 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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, time window and a data-availability caveat, which is close to sufficient. The one real gap is the absence of any output schema, so the description should hint at what comes back (show names, times, venue), which it does not.

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%, and the park_id field already enumerates accepted keys and shorthands while date documents the today-through-6-days range. The description's 'at one supported park today or within the next week' merely restates that range, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete resource set (shows, parades, fireworks, character meets) and the verb 'when ... happens', which is meaningfully distinct from sibling tools like parky_get_hours or parky_get_waits. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary (e.g. vs. parky_get_best_time or parky_find_experience) on its own.

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 when a show, parade, fireworks or character meet happens' gives a clear, quotable triggering condition rather than vague context. It also scopes the acceptable window ('today or within the next week'), but names no alternatives or when-not conditions, so there is no explicit routing guidance against overlapping siblings.

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