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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable operational context: paid-call pricing, x402/Solana payment context, and an alternate HTTPS endpoint, though it does not explain payment flow or error behavior in detail.

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 front-loads the function definition, then gives three compact examples, input bounds, and pricing/endpoint details. It is appropriately sized and readable, though the examples and operational notes could be slightly tightened.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies return semantics, examples, input bounds, price, and an alternate endpoint. This is enough to invoke the tool correctly, though explicit sibling differentiation would improve selection confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the input is a list of sorted preferences, states the 1-to-8 length and value bounds, and provides examples that clarify valid arrays; it does not explicitly name the prefs parameter, but the meaning is clear.

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 defines the exact return value: the first 1-based index where sorted preferences exceed the index, or 0 for a parking function, with examples. The mathematical operation is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling parking_* tools.

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 examples and input bounds but no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives such as parking or parking_shift. Usage is implied by the function definition, but routing among siblings is left to inference.

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