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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is a safe read. The description adds behavioral context: 'from today forward' indicates temporal scope, and the usage advice gives practical context. No destructive behavior is disclosed or contradicted.

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 efficient sentences: first states what the tool does, second states its purpose. No filler or redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, but it does not specify the return format (e.g., list of dates with times). While the purpose is clear, a more complete description could benefit agent planning.

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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), including defaults. The tool description repeats the default home park but adds no further meaning beyond what's in the schema. Thus, it meets baseline but adds no extra value.

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 it retrieves operating hours for a Six Flags park, which is distinct from sibling tools like wait times, attractions, shows, etc. It specifies the resource (park schedule) and action (get), making it unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: 'plan what time to arrive and how long you have.' It implies when to use this tool, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. However, given sibling tools, the context is sufficient.

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. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Showtimes are only populated on operating days' and the default park behavior. No contradictory or hidden 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, types, default, and constraint.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage caveat, and default. Minor gap: no expectation of response format, but acceptable given low complexity.

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 100% for the single parameter, with schema description already explaining park name/slug/id and default. The tool description simply reiterates the default without adding new semantics, meeting baseline expectations.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'today’s live show schedule', specifying show types (parades, stunt shows, character meets). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing solely on shows, not full park schedule or attractions.

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?

Provides clear context: defaults to home park (Carowinds) and only populated on operating days. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the scope (shows only) and sibling names guide appropriate use.

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, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds richer behavioral details: returns every attraction with status (operating/closed/down), standby and single-rider waits, sorted longest-wait first, and a park crowd-level summary. No contradiction.

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 a single sentence that packs all key information (purpose, default, output format, sorting, crowd summary) without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, though splitting into two sentences could improve readability.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (attractions, status, waits, sorted, crowd level). Both optional parameters are covered. No output schema makes this level of detail appropriate and sufficient.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context beyond the schema: it clarifies the default park (Carowinds) and the default for openOnly (false means include closed/down). This helps the agent understand defaults without calling the tool.

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 verb (Get), resource (ride wait times), and scope (Six Flags park, defaults to Carowinds). It distinguishes from siblings like sixflags_list_parks (lists parks) and sixflags_get_park_schedule (gets schedule), making its purpose unique.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. The context implies it's for retrieving real-time wait data, but it doesn't specify when to prefer it over sixflags_list_attractions or sixflags_suggest_next, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read-only health check. It adds specific return information (status and park count). No behavioral contradictions or missing critical details beyond what annotations cover.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers its behavior. It explains the inputs (none) and outputs (status and park count), making it complete for agent understanding.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides no additional parameter information, which is acceptable.

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 identifies the tool as a health check for the upstream data source, specifying the action (check reachability and data return) and what it returns (ok/degraded, number of parks). It is distinct from sibling tools that retrieve specific park data.

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 implies the tool is used to verify connectivity before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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, so the description correctly reinforces that it returns static, not live data. It adds context about including map coordinates and that it is a full directory, but does not go beyond the read-only nature already indicated by 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No superfluous words.

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, the description fully covers its purpose, parameters, default behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. No output schema is needed, as the description implies the expected items (attractions with map coordinates).

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 both parameters are already described. The description adds the default value for 'park' (home park Carowinds), providing extra context beyond the schema, but does not elaborate on the enum values or format.

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?

Clearly states that it lists attractions, shows, or restaurants at a Six Flags park, including map coordinates. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it provides static metadata and not live wait times, with an explicit reference to sixflags_get_wait_times for current status.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: use sixflags_get_wait_times for current wait times, defaults to home park (Carowinds), and clarifies that it lists static metadata. Also implies the type parameter can be set to different entity kinds.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, description adds specific return fields (id, name, destination, home park flag). No contradictions. Provides useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word adds value; no wasted space.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, description sufficiently covers what is returned. Could mention lack of pagination but not critical.

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?

Single parameter 'search' is fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description repeats filter functionality but adds no additional meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'List Six Flags parks' with specific chain details and optional filtering. Distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on parks vs. schedules, wait times, attractions, etc.

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?

Describes optional name substring filtering. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools, the context of listing parks vs. attractions is clear. Slight room for improvement.

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, so the description's main behavioral disclosure is that it filters to 'currently-operating rides'. This adds value beyond annotations but does not cover additional behaviors like rate limits or data freshness. No contradiction with 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 three well-structured sentences, front-loading the core purpose and usage pattern. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or fluff content.

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 no output schema, the description explains the ranking logic, filtering, and use case adequately for a relatively simple tool. It could mention that the return is a list of suggested attractions with wait times, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It reiterates the default park (Carowinds) and the purpose of 'exclude' (rides already done), but these are already in the schema descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Recommend which attraction to ride next: ranks currently-operating rides by shortest standby wait.' This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sixflags_get_wait_times or sixflags_list_attractions.

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 advises using the tool repeatedly throughout the day to hop to the lowest-wait ride, providing clear context. It also notes optional exclusions and wait caps, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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