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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a refresh cadence of every few minutes, and that it is only meaningful during park hours, which tells the agent when data may be stale or empty.

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, zero filler; the payload description comes first and the freshness constraint second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (estimate, range, confidence, ghost flag) so the agent knows what to expect. It is complete enough for a single-parameter read tool, with only minor gaps around data availability outside park hours.

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% and the single enum parameter already documents that omitting `park` returns all four parks. The description adds no further semantics about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific resource (current posted wait times for Walt Disney World attractions) and enumerates the exact payload: Real Wait estimate, low/high range, confidence, and ghost-wait flag. The scope is unmistakably distinct from get_crowd_forecast and get_attraction_details, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Current" and "Refreshes every few minutes during park hours" imply this is the right tool for real-time wait checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to alternatives like get_crowd_forecast for future dates. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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