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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data source (SupaPark), the timezone ('Times are Eastern'), and the sentinel value 'still available' for rides not yet sold out. Return shape details like sort order or pagination are absent, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with mode definitions following as tight fragments. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded. The sentence is long and slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 read-only, no-required-parameter query with no output schema, the description supplies the domain semantics an agent needs: what is measured, the two modes and their returned statistics, the timezone, and the 'still available' case. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical 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 only 33%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines both enum modes of 'range' in detail, including the derived statistics for 'week' (days sold out, days gone before 7:00 AM). The 'limit' parameter remains entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and 'park' filtering is only covered by the schema's own description.

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+resource: 'when each Walt Disney World ride's Lightning Lane sold out,' which is clearly distinct from sibling get_lightning_lane_prices (prices vs. sellout timing). The SupaPark attribution clarifies the data source. It does not explicitly name the neighboring pricing tool, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

The description explains what each 'range' mode yields, which implies when each mode is appropriate, but never states when to use this tool versus get_lightning_lane_prices or get_live_wait_times, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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