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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: what the response contains (verdict, tow-risk rule, current cost, events/parades, easiest streets, live Easy Lane link). It stops short of noting rate limits or data freshness/latency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and input formats, then the return contents, ending with the usage trigger. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 return-value burden and does so thoroughly (verdict, tow-risk rule, cost, events, nearby streets, link). Combined with 100% parameter coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by giving accepted address input formats ('Superdome', '800 Magazine St', 'Frenchmen and Chartres') and clarifying that stay_hours changes the answer over time. It does not restate lat/lon or 'when' beyond 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?

States a specific verb (check), resource (street parking), and geographic scope (New Orleans), with concrete input examples. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_parking, airport_parking, and park_and_ride because it answers a yes/no/where question at a specific place.

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 final sentence gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this whenever someone asks where or whether they can park in New Orleans.' That is clear context, but it does not name or exclude alternatives (e.g. find_parking, airport_parking, park_and_ride) despite several plausible siblings existing.

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