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.