status.live theme parks

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

Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the upstream source (Queue-Times), a 5-minute refresh cadence, an as-of timestamp, and crucially the meaning of the state values, including that source_error means unknown rather than closed. That last distinction prevents a serious misreading of the response.

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 what the tool returns, then usage, then provenance and state semantics. It is dense but every clause carries information; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does: per-ride open/closed status with wait times grouped by area, park local time, a weather forecast, an as-of time, and the tri-state status field. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result 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 baseline is 3. The description's mentions of `ride` (specific-ride queries) and include_rides (counts only) largely restate what the schema already documents, adding little syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 and resource ('Live ride status for one theme park') and enumerates the payload (rides grouped by area with wait times, park local time, weather forecast). It clearly separates this tool from themeparks_search_parks and from the other domains' status tools.

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 operational context: pass `ride` to answer about specific rides with an example, and set include_rides=false for counts only. It does not, however, route to the sibling themeparks_search_parks for discovering a park id/name, which is the natural prerequisite given the park param accepts either.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a set of park ids and that an empty query returns the full catalog, which is useful. However, 'list everything' sits awkwardly against the schema's limit default of 25, so the actual result-size behavior is left ambiguous.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding; the searchable facets come first, the return/chaining fact second, and the empty-query rule last. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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 discloses that it returns park ids and links them to themeparks_get_park_status, and it explains the query parameter. The only real gap is the limit parameter and how it interacts with the 'list everything' claim.

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 50%: query is documented in the schema, limit is not. The description enriches query semantics with concrete country/operator examples and the empty-string behavior, but says nothing about limit, so half the parameter surface remains undocumented. That is adequate but not compensatory.

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 (find theme parks) plus the exact searchable facets (name, id, country, operator) and scopes it to 'the theme parks this server covers', which cleanly separates it from nationalparks_search_parks, ski_search_resorts and surf_search_spots.

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 an explicit usage rule ('Leave query empty to list everything') and names the downstream tool that consumes the returned ids (themeparks_get_park_status), so the agent knows both when to call it bare and what to do with the result. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions, so it is strong but not a 5.

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