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.