sixflags_list_attractions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: this returns static metadata, not live status, and includes map coordinates — telling the agent the data can be stale by design.

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?

Three compact clauses: what it lists, what it is not (with the alternative), and the default park. The scoping and routing information is front-loaded with no 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 two-parameter, optional-argument list tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, data freshness, routing, and a hint at the return payload (map coordinates). With no output schema, a slightly fuller note on the returned fields would make it complete.

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 both parameters (park, type) are already documented, including the enum values for type. The description restates the home-park default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the attractions... at a Six Flags park') and scopes it as the full directory with map coordinates. It distinguishes itself from sibling sixflags_get_wait_times by framing the output as static metadata rather than live status.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative for live data ('use sixflags_get_wait_times for current waits') and states the default park behavior. It does not address the apparent overlap with sibling sixflags_get_shows for the SHOW entity type, which is the one real routing ambiguity left.

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