sixflags_suggest_next

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main behavioral disclosure is that it filters to 'currently-operating rides'. This adds value beyond annotations but does not cover additional behaviors like rate limits or data freshness. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured sentences, front-loading the core purpose and usage pattern. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or fluff content.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the ranking logic, filtering, and use case adequately for a relatively simple tool. It could mention that the return is a list of suggested attractions with wait times, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 description adds little beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It reiterates the default park (Carowinds) and the purpose of 'exclude' (rides already done), but these are already in the schema descriptions. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Recommend which attraction to ride next: ranks currently-operating rides by shortest standby wait.' This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sixflags_get_wait_times or sixflags_list_attractions.

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 advises using the tool repeatedly throughout the day to hop to the lowest-wait ride, providing clear context. It also notes optional exclusions and wait caps, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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