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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the 30-minute freshness limit and the absence of prediction. It does not describe return format or pagination, so it is not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the use case and prerequisites before the limitations. The negative statements ('unavailable, not current' and 'does not predict future waits') slightly overlap, keeping it just below full marks.

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, non-open-world tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations declaring safety, the description covers trigger, prerequisite, and limitations. Return value structure is not described, but no output schema exists, so an agent could benefit from knowing the shape of results.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the sequencing hint 'Resolve the park ID first' and nothing about formats or edge cases beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('current posted ride waits or operating status') and scopes it to 'one supported park', which is clear. It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from siblings like parky_get_hours or parky_get_crowd_outlook, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear context for use ('when a visitor asks for current posted ride waits or operating status') and a prerequisite ('Resolve the park ID first'), plus boundary conditions (waits older than 30 minutes unavailable; no future waits). It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool to use for future predictions.

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