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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that the response includes past wait-time history and downtime, which tells the agent this is heavier than a point query. No mention of rate limits or data freshness, keeping it from a 5.

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 resource and payload, then the required input with an inline example. No filler.

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?

A read-only detail tool with no output schema is described well enough to call: the nature of the return (attributes + wait history + downtime) is stated. The gap is that the 'range' parameter that scopes the history is never acknowledged, so an agent may not realize history length is configurable.

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 50%: 'slug' is documented in both schema and description with an example, but 'range' (enum today/7d/30d, default 7d) is never mentioned in the description. The description duplicates the slug info the schema already gives rather than clarifying the range semantics.

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 (details) and resource (one WDW attraction) and enumerates the exact fields returned (height requirement, land, thrill level, Lightning Lane tier, wait history, downtime). This clearly distinguishes it from get_live_wait_times (live only) and get_lightning_lane_prices among the siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch this when you need static attraction attributes plus historical wait data, versus get_live_wait_times for current waits. However no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no named alternatives, and no note that the caller must supply an already-known slug.

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