sixflags_get_park_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the temporal range and the home-park default. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or edge cases such as invalid pak names or timezone handling. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: it states the core function, the default behavior, and the intended use case. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, the temporal scope, and the default park. The schema and annotations cover the remaining details.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters, including defaults, so the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail. The description does restate the park default, but adds no new meaning for parameter handling beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('operating hours for a Six Flags park') with a clear scope ('from today forward'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on operating hours, not wait times, attractions, or shows. The home park default is also explicitly stated.

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 gives a concrete use case ('plan what time to arrive and how long you have'), which clearly communicates when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly describe when not to use it or name alternatives, but the presented context is clear and sufficient.

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