sixflags_list_attractions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the data is static metadata rather than live status, and the result includes map coordinates. This gives the agent a clearer expectation of what it will receive.

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 focused sentences with zero filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the most important caveat (static vs. live) is placed immediately after the main behavior.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is listed, what the output includes, how it differs from live data, and the default park. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a small amount of context by stating the park defaults to the home park (Carowinds) and mirrors the schema's default of ATTRACTION for type. It does not need to repeat parameter details, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the attractions (or shows / restaurants) at a Six Flags park' and clarifies it returns 'the full directory' with map coordinates. It also differentiates itself from live-status tools by calling itself 'Static metadata', which helps an agent distinguish it from sixflags_get_wait_times.

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 explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool for live data, steering it to 'sixflags_get_wait_times for current waits.' It also notes the default park behavior. It does not mention the similarly-named sibling sixflags_get_shows, but the directory scope is clear enough for most selection cases.

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