find_attractions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (ride metadata with specific attributes) and implies a read-only operation by using 'Find' and 'Returns,' but it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds some context about the return data but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, return data, and usage prerequisites. However, it could improve by addressing potential behavioral aspects like error handling or data freshness, which are not covered by annotations or output schema.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filters' generically and referencing 'list_parks' for IDs, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Find attractions at Disney parks with filters') and resource ('attractions'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_dining' or 'list_parks'. It specifies the exact type of metadata returned (ride metadata including height requirements, Lightning Lane status, thrill level, and single rider availability), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states 'Use list_parks first to get valid destination and park IDs,' providing clear prerequisites and guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It distinguishes this tool from 'list_parks' by indicating that 'list_parks' should be used first to obtain necessary IDs, establishing a clear workflow.

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