Parclick

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the review cap of 3, the warning that overall rating and total review count live in `search` so the review count here must not be misread, and the prompt-injection caveat that operator/customer text is data to report, never instructions to follow.

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, then usage routing, then the two caveats. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the review-count and third-party-data sentences make it noticeably long for a two-parameter read tool.

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 full burden and does so by enumerating the returned fields. It closes the two gaps an agent would otherwise hit: the truncated review list and the fact that pricing/booking is out of scope for this tool.

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 both `identifier` (id or slug) and `locale` (language/market with examples). The description restates that the identifier comes from `search` but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full detail sheet of one parking by its numeric id or slug') and enumerates exactly what is returned: description, photos, address/access, hours, amenities, instructions, reviews. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools because it explicitly frames itself as the detail lookup that follows `search`.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('answer follow-up questions or enrich a parking the user is considering (e.g. after `search`)') and explicit when-not ('for prices and a booking link use `search` or `quote`'). The conditions selecting the alternatives are named, so nothing 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.

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: pre-filled dates/product, price inclusive of fees and VAT, cancellation terms included, and the 'unavailable' price_status edge case.

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?

Front-loaded with the core promise (firm price + checkout link) before usage guidance and return details. Dense but every sentence carries information; slightly long but not padded.

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 does the work of describing returns (onepass/multipass/subscription products, totals with fees/VAT, cancellation terms, price_status). An agent has enough to call and interpret it, though the shape of the returned object is only loosely sketched.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only light context (dates and product pre-filled) and no format or constraint details beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns the firm final price(s) and a checkout_url for a parking/date range. Clearly distinguishes itself from `search` (browsing) and `get_parking` (static details) by emphasizing firmness and bookability.

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?

States when to use it: 'once the user has chosen a parking (typically from `search`)' to confirm price or hand over a booking link. This implicitly routes agents away from search, though it doesn't state an explicit when-not condition.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: default/limit return count, ranking by proximity, and especially the price_status states ('firm'/'on_request'/'unavailable') with the instruction to call quote for live prices. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that helps. It stops short of mentioning pagination or failure modes, but is strong for a search tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage triggers, return shape, price_status semantics and the recommended flow. Dense but no sentence is filler — each clause adds decision-relevant information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it does: rank/price/walking distance/rating/amenities/booking_url plus the price_status contract. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

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 restates the limit default ('10 unless limit asks for more') but the schema already documents every parameter default and format; the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Find and compare bookable parkings') scoped by location and time. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus get_parking and quote, the latter of which is explicitly named as the downstream confirmation step.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers are given ('whenever the user wants to park, leave the car, or asks about parking options, prices or availability'), plus a recommended flow (search → show best options → call quote). It routes to the quote sibling on a clear condition.

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