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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description discloses computed enforcement status using the published season and daily window against America/New_York, plus the season and hours used. It also explains that state, county, and DEC beaches are returned flagged `outsideTheStickerMap`, and that `townScope.recognized: false` yields empty rows and possible `didYouMean` suggestions.

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 dense but front-loaded, starting with the resource and map scope before covering beach lookups, town lookups, enforcement, exclusions, and unrecognized-place behavior. Every sentence carries operational information, and the length is appropriate for a domain with no output schema.

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 carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so thoroughly: permit verdicts, non-resident and day-pass options, fines, application locations, computed enforcement, season and hours, outlier flags, and recognition errors. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and understand the shape of the answer.

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?

The schema already fully describes `where`, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning about how the argument is interpreted via `townScope`, what happens when no East End place matches, and how omissions behave, but the core accepted values are largely already present in the schema.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the East End beach-parking permit map across seven jurisdictions, resolved against a beach or town in `where`. It clearly distinguishes itself from the broad local-information siblings by explaining that it returns permit, sticker, day-pass, fine, application, and enforcement verdicts for parking.

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 clear usage conditions: use a beach name for a lot-specific verdict, a town or hamlet for the jurisdiction plus its beaches, or omit `where` for the whole map. It also states the tool covers parking only and not dog rules, lifeguard hours, or car-free access, which is useful exclusion guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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