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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ranking, or what happens when query/category match nothing.

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 with zero filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded before the return-field list. Every sentence contributes 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields, and the rich input schema plus annotations cover the rest. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether results are distance-ranked or how many fields are localized per locale.

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 limit, query, locale, and category are already fully documented, including enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 gives a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("parking lots") and narrows the scope to a named area, Nanukamachi-dori. It also lists the return fields, so an agent can distinguish it from get-parking, but it never names that sibling or explains the relationship explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to search/browse multiple parking lots and get-parking for a single one. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools, so the agent must infer the routing.

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