sixflags_list_parks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return payload (id, name, owning destination) and the side behavior that the caller's configured home park is flagged, which is real context the annotations do not carry. It says nothing about rate limits or auth, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then scope, then filter, then return shape—every sentence earns its place. The parenthetical park examples are slightly long but serve disambiguation, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 correctly covers the return fields itself, which is the main gap it needed to fill. Remaining omissions (result ordering, pagination, or whether results can be empty) are minor for a small finite park list.

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% for the single 'search' parameter, so the schema already defines it as a case-insensitive substring. The description only restates the optional-substring filter and is slightly narrower than the schema, which also covers destination names. Baseline 3 for schema-driven parameters.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('List Six Flags parks') with the scope pinned down: the combined Six Flags/Cedar Fair chain, with named examples spanning parks and the Hurricane Harbor water parks. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like sixflags_list_attractions or sixflags_get_wait_times, which operate within a single park.

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: this is the entry-point lookup that a park-scoped sibling (list_attractions, get_wait_times) would depend on, and the optional substring filter is noted. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stays at implied usage.

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