sixflags_suggest_next

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no mutation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it operates on 'currently-operating rides,' uses only 'standby wait' rather than other queue types, and is intended for repeated use during a day. 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 compact, front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, ranking behavior, optional filters, usage guidance, and default park. There is no redundancy or 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 read-only suggestion tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool does, how to use it, and the park default. There is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly describe the response shape, but the ranking-by-wait phrasing and limit parameter make the expected output reasonably inferable.

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 all four parameters. The description adds contextual meaning around the main use case—'exclude rides you've already done' and 'cap the wait'—but does not substantially extend the param-level documentation, keeping this at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Recommend which attraction to ride next,' then defines the behavior precisely as 'ranks currently-operating rides by shortest standby wait.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wait_times or list_attractions, which return raw data rather than a recommendation.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Use this repeatedly through the day to keep hopping to the lowest-wait ride.' It also notes optional exclusions and caps and states the park default. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the use case is clearly scoped.

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