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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value-add is the data semantics: ride entries are always present and reported as 'unavailable' rather than closed when no live value exists, while experience/show/meet entries appear only while reported. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about freshness or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by prerequisite, return-shape caveats, and scope exclusion. No filler or restatement 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 carries the burden of explaining the returned entry types and their listing rules, and it does so clearly. Minor gaps remain around result freshness and how 'unavailable' should be surfaced to a user, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so both park_id and ride_id are already documented in the schema, including the park-key fallback and the 'one ride only' behavior. The description only echoes the park-ID prerequisite, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('current posted ride waits or operating status') and scopes it to 'one supported park', which cleanly separates it from siblings like parky_get_ride_outages, parky_get_best_time and parky_get_showtimes. An agent can identify the tool's job 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a visitor asks for current posted ride waits or operating status'), a prerequisite ('Resolve the park ID first'), and a negative boundary ('does not predict future waits'). It stops short of naming the alternative tools for prediction (e.g. parky_get_best_time), so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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