status.live theme parks

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses the upstream source (Queue-Times), the 5-minute refresh cadence, an as-of timestamp, and — critically — the meaning of each state, including that source_error means unknown rather than closed. That interpretation guidance prevents a real misinterpretation and is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned payload, then filtering, then provenance/state semantics — a sensible order with no filler. The first sentence is long and clause-heavy, which slightly taxes scanning.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so fully: rides, wait times, grouping, park time, weather, freshness, and the state enum. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret results 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 100%, so the schema already documents `park` (id or name) and `ride` (case-insensitive substring). The description largely restates these, adding only an example ride name; per the baseline rule this lands at 3.

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 (live ride status for one theme park) and enumerates the payload: per-ride open/closed with wait time, area grouping, park local time, weather forecast. This clearly separates it from sibling status tools for other domains (ski_get_resort_status, surf_get_spot_status, nationalparks_get_park_status) and from themeparks_search_parks.

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?

"Pass `ride` to answer about specific rides" gives concrete usage context, and the state semantics tell the agent how to interpret results. However, it never states exclusions or routing (e.g., use themeparks_search_parks first to resolve an unknown park), so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it says the result is park ids, that empty query returns everything, and where those ids are consumed next. It omits pagination/limit behavior, which keeps 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 tight sentences that front-load the searchable dimensions, then the return value and the empty-query escape hatch. No filler, though the country/operator examples add a little length without being 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states what is returned (park ids) and how to use them. Annotations cover the safety profile. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter and result-size behavior, which an agent may need to reason about.

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%: 'query' is documented in the schema, 'limit' is not. The description richly characterizes query (name, id, country, operator with concrete examples like 'Japan' and 'Six Flags') and the empty-query case, but says nothing about limit's default of 25 or its 200 cap.

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 (search/find) and resource (theme parks this server covers), and enumerates the searchable dimensions (name, id, country, operator). The 'this server covers' scoping plus the themeparks_ prefix clearly separates it from the nationalparks_search_parks and ski_search_resorts 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?

Gives clear usage context: search by several fields, empty query to list everything, and an explicit handoff to themeparks_get_park_status for the returned ids. It does not state when NOT to use it or name the alternative search tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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