sixflags_get_wait_times

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is handled. The description goes beyond them by disclosing sort order (longest-wait first), the status vocabulary (operating/closed/down), the presence of standby + single-rider waits, and an aggregate crowd-level summary — useful output-shape context not available in annotations or schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action before detail, with no filler. Slightly over-packed (statuses, two wait types, sorting, crowd summary in one breath) but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so well: per-attraction status plus standby/single-rider waits, ordering, and a crowd-level summary. An agent knows what it will get and how to constrain it via openOnly.

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 both parameters are already documented with defaults. The description restates the park default and that closed/down rides are included by default, which is mild reinforcement rather than new meaning — 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get current ride wait times for a Six Flags park') and clearly separates itself from siblings like sixflags_list_attractions by emphasizing live waits and status. The default-home-park behavior is stated up front.

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 word 'current' implies the when (live conditions rather than schedules or attraction metadata), and the Carowinds default gives context. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. sixflags_get_park_schedule or sixflags_list_attractions) or states when not to use it, leaving routing to inference.

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