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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that only decided appeals are included and that withdrawals end in the driver's favour without a ruling and are counted separately.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives parameter guidance, then clarifies an important data-scope nuance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the moderate complexity, full schema parameter descriptions, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains the data source, the two calling modes, the output shape (series/change vs. totals/ranking), and the key exclusion of withdrawals. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what the caller should expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the semantic difference between supplying an operator (three-year series and percentage-point change) and omitting it (all-operator totals and ranking). This clarifies the operator parameter's role more than the schema alone.

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 identifies the resource (POPLA's record of private parking appeal outcomes), the scope (per operator across 2023-2025 annual reports), and the two modes of use (per-operator series vs. all-operator totals/ranking). It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like violation_dismissal_rates or denial_clock.

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 gives explicit instructions on when to provide an operator versus omit it, and clarifies that withdrawals are counted separately. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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