list_parks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content (IDs, names, locations) and scope (Walt Disney World and Disneyland Resort theme parks), but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format. It adds some context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 usage guidance in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It explains what the tool returns and how to use the output with sibling tools. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the response structure, but it adequately covers the basics.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output and usage. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it adds value without unnecessary details.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List all Disney parks') and resources ('parks with their IDs, names, and locations'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns only Walt Disney World and Disneyland Resort theme parks. It explicitly mentions what the tool does beyond just restating the name.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by stating 'Use park IDs from this response when filtering attractions or dining,' which directly references sibling tools like find_attractions and find_dining. It clearly indicates this tool should be used first to obtain IDs for filtering in other operations.

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