sixflags_get_wait_times

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral details: it returns all attractions, includes statuses, sorts longest-wait first, and includes a crowd-level summary. It does not disclose every edge case, but it goes beyond the annotation meaningfully.

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 packs in the operation, default behavior, return contents, ordering, and crowd summary without filler. Every clause adds information an agent would need.

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 takes the responsibility of explaining the return shape: attraction statuses, standby and single-rider waits, sorting, and crowd level. The optional parameters are directly explained by the input schema. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the default for park and the openOnly behavior. The description mostly reiterates what the schema says without adding deeper param-level meaning. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not elevate it.

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') with a clear resource ('current ride wait times for a Six Flags park'), and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sixflags_get_park_schedule and sixflags_list_attractions. It also states scope and return structure, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 makes the use case clear: retrieve current ride wait times. It also notes the default park behavior, which helps agents know when no park parameter is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough among the siblings that an agent can select it correctly without explicit exclusions.

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