sixflags_get_shows

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine operational context beyond that: the default to the home park (Carowinds) and the caveat that showtimes are only populated on operating days, which pre-explains empty results. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about coverage scope or what happens outside operating days.

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 action and result, followed by the default and the operating-day caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 carries return-value burden; it names the payload ('showtimes') and the show categories, and flags the operating-day condition that determines whether results exist. That is sufficient for a single-optional-param read tool, though it could say more about the shape of a showtime entry.

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?

With a single optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents 'park' (name, slug, or id, defaults to home park). The description restates the same default without adding format, resolution-order, or invalid-park behavior, so baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get today's live show schedule (showtimes)') and enumerates the content types covered — parades, stunt shows, character meets. That content scoping implicitly separates it from siblings like sixflags_get_park_schedule and sixflags_list_attractions, but it never names or contrasts an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this when it wants showtimes, and the note about the default home park clarifies the no-argument case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., get_park_schedule for broader scheduling), which the closely-related sibling makes a real gap.

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