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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: 'Times are usually published for today only,' warning the agent that future dates may return nothing. It does not describe return shape or ordering, but that is a minor 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the data-availability caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, scope and a key freshness caveat. It could briefly note what is returned (a list of timed show/parade entries), but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the park-local date default and the park_id source. The description only implies the date window ('today or within the next week') and the single-park constraint, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource ('get when a show, parade, fireworks or character meet happens') and scopes it to one supported park within today or the next week. This clearly separates it from siblings like parky_get_hours, parky_get_waits and parky_get_event_nights, which cover different entity types.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when a visitor asks when a show, parade, fireworks or character meet happens'), which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming alternative tools for adjacent questions (e.g., park hours or event nights), so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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