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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description goes beyond them by disclosing data provenance and staleness ("prices ... shown Parky on its last check") and by ruling out transaction behavior, which is genuinely useful context for an agent, though it says nothing about coverage gaps or missing-price behavior.

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 tight sentences with the trigger front-loaded, followed by the return semantics and the capability boundary. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing what comes back (last-observed prices from Disney or Universal). For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, nothing an agent needs 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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the date must fall within the next year, and the resort parameter maps to the enumerated set of supported resort keys. That constrains valid inputs in a way the schema alone does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get ticket prices) plus the exact scope: a supported resort and a start date within the next year. The supported-resort list makes it instantly separable from sibling tools like parky_get_hours or parky_get_waits, which cover different resources.

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?

Explicitly frames the trigger ("Use this when a visitor asks what park tickets cost") and adds a boundary condition ("Parky cannot sell or book tickets"), which prevents the agent from treating this as a booking path. No inference is required to decide when to call it.

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