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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the shape of the result (index, label, drivers) and the default date window when from/to are omitted.

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 verb and resource, then the default-range caveat. Every phrase earns its place with 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields (index, label, drivers) and the default time range. Only minor detail (exact per-day record shape) is left implicit, which is acceptable for this scope.

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 the schema already documents park (with enum) and the from/to dates, making 3 the baseline. The description only reinforces that a single park is forecast and that dates are optional, adding little syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 (forecast) and resource (day-by-day crowd for one park) and even previews the returned values (0-100 index, label, drivers). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_live_wait_times or which_park_today, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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 (plan around crowd levels) and one default is stated ('covers the next few weeks when no dates are given'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison to sibling planning tools such as which_park_today.

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