sixflags_list_parks

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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it covers the combined chain, includes water parks, returns owning destination, and flags the configured home park. There is no contradiction, and no dangerous hidden side effects are suggested.

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?

Single well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose, includes clarifying examples, describes the optional filter, and lists return fields. Every clause adds useful information without redundancy.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, scope, filtering behavior, and return contents. An agent can decide to call it and understand the result without additional documentation.

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 the search parameter is already well documented. The description restates that filtering is optional and by name substring, but does not extend meaning much beyond the schema, only adding the broader context of park/destination naming.

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 action and resource: 'List Six Flags parks', naming the combined chain and examples. It clearly identifies the tool's domain, distinguishes it from list_attractions and other sibling tools, and details the returned fields.

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 tool's role obvious and explains optional name-substring filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as sixflags_list_attractions or sixflags_get_park_schedule. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

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