Find Car Parking

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the core check, such as return format, error handling, or interpretation of 'available'. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate but not enriching.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and target. It uses no unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the verb 'Check'.

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?

The tool is simple, with good annotations and full schema coverage. However, the description does not specify the output/return format (e.g., boolean, status code) or behavior for an invalid parking_id, which could matter for an agent. Given low complexity, the description is mostly complete but has this gap.

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?

The input schema has a single parking_id parameter with a clear description, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks availability for a specific parking space. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_available_parkings, which lists multiple available spots, and get_parking_details, which would provide details rather than availability.

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 description implies usage when you have a specific parking_id and need a yes/no availability check, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like list_available_parkings or get_parking_details. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as return format, data scope, or error behavior, and merely restates the tool's purpose.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient but lacks any additional useful detail that could be included without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool, comprehensive annotations, and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, and there is no output schema, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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%, with area_id described as 'The area ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states 'Get detailed information about a specific area', clearly identifying the action (get) and resource (area info) with individual-level scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_areas, but the wording implies a specific-item retrieval.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools such as list_areas or get_parking_details.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the phrase 'detailed information', which is vague and does not disclose specifics like whether reviews are included or how review_limit affects output. Some value is added but not much beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler or unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, stating the core purpose immediately.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks detail about what 'detailed information' includes, whether reviews are part of the response, and how it differs from get_parking_reviews. There is no output schema to clarify return values.

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%, with both parking_id and review_limit already described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific parking space'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_* and get_parking_reviews by focusing on a single parking space, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_parking_reviews or list_available_parkings. The description merely states what it does without contextualizing its usage relative to alternatives.

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds minimal context by specifying the resource scope ('specific parking space'), but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or return format details beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It conveys the core purpose immediately and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema) and strong annotation coverage, the description is mostly complete for a basic read operation. It could optionally mention ordering or whether limit is applied, but the schema and annotations fill the essential gaps.

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 parking_space_id and limit. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond echoing that reviews are for a specific space, which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 says 'Get reviews for a specific parking space.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('reviews') with a clear scope ('specific parking space'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recent_reviews that target recent reviews across spaces.

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 description implies usage when reviews for a particular parking space are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_recent_reviews, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the city-scoping constraint but does not disclose behavior when neither city_id nor city_slug is provided, nor any return format details. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and strong annotations/schema coverage, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not explain whether at least one city identifier is required, what happens if both are omitted, or what the return structure looks like. Since there is no output schema, some of this burden falls on the description.

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%, as both city_id and city_slug have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema; it merely repeats the 'specific city' concept. The optionality of the parameters and potential requirement for at least one is not clarified.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all areas within a specific city.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('areas'), and a scope ('within a specific city'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cities (lists cities) and list_nearby_areas (lists areas by proximity).

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 description implies usage context (you need a city to list its areas) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_nearby_areas or get_area_info. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'available' status filter but does not explain what happens when `area_id` is omitted or how 'all' reconciles with the optional `limit` parameter. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb and object, and every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite good annotations and schema, the description is incomplete for a list tool with no output schema: it does not specify return format, default behavior when `area_id` is absent, or how it differs from `search_parkings`. The large sibling set increases the need for contextual guidance, which is missing.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description does not add any parameter-specific context, which aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'available parking spaces' and a locative scope 'in an area'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `search_parkings` or `check_availability`, which focus on searching or availability checks rather than a broad listing of available spaces.

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 description implies usage for listing all available spaces in an area, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `search_parkings`. With 13 siblings, the lack of explicit when/when-not guidance leaves the decision ambiguous.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's safety profile is covered. The phrase 'all available cities' adds a slight behavioral detail (no filtering) but does not describe return format or any additional constraints.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no fluff. Every word is necessary.

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?

This is a trivial zero-parameter list tool with strong annotations (read-only, idempotent). The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No additional context is needed.

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?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. Schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, baseline is 4; the description is not required to add parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'cities in the platform.' This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on parking, areas, or searches.

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 description implies usage: use this to retrieve all cities. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. For a simple listing tool, the context is mildly implied but not explicitly stated.

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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as default radius, sort order, or what happens when both area_id and area_slug are provided. It merely restates the purpose.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that leads with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately concise and easily scannable.

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 five parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not state that an anchor identifier is required, nor does it mention default radius, pagination, or return structure. The tool is under-specified for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds little beyond mapping 'anchor area' to area_id/area_slug and 'radius' to radius_km. It does not clarify relationships like mutual exclusivity between area_id and area_slug, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('areas'), and the specific scope ('near a given anchor area within a radius'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_areas by specifying the nearby/radius constraint.

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 description implies usage when an anchor area and radius are relevant, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_by_location or search. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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 declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope ('recent', 'across all parking spaces') but no additional behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or response format. With annotations carrying the main safety burden, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and resource immediately and is highly economical.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It does not explain the output format, but no output schema exists and the tool's behavior is straightforward. A slightly more detailed description could note sorting or default limit, but current state is adequate.

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%, providing full meaning for both 'limit' and 'only_available'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already handles this dimension, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent reviews across all parking spaces'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_parking_reviews which targets a specific parking space. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 scope 'across all parking spaces' provides clear context for when to use this tool (when an aggregate view is needed), differentiating it from get_parking_reviews. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail by mentioning 'candidate suggestions,' implying multiple possible matches. However, it does not explain ambiguous input handling, matching behavior, or the structure of suggestions beyond that.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that is easy to read and completely front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

While the schema and annotations cover parameter definitions and safety, the description does not fully explain return value structure, edge cases (e.g., no match, multiple candidates), or how the optional city and city_slug hints affect resolution. The tool appears straightforward, but the lack of usage context and output details leaves some gaps. The sibling tools suggest potential overlap that this description does not address.

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%, with all four parameters (text, city, city_slug, candidate_limit) having clear descriptions in the schema. Therefore, the description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Resolve a location string into a city and area with candidate suggestions.' It uses a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('location string') and describes the output (city, area, candidate suggestions). This distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_by_location or search. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The existence of sibling tools implies selection should be guided, but the description fails to offer any direction.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about fuzzy input handling, optional city resolution, and the combination of DB, Google, and LLM parsing, which helps agents anticipate result variability and external dependencies without contradicting any annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy, with the second sentence efficiently summarizing the underlying mechanism.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential high-level context but omits details like parameter interactions (e.g., available_only vs include_unavailable), result ordering, or return format. The schema fills many gaps, but the absence of output schema and limited interaction guidance make the description somewhat incomplete.

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. The description adds general context that 'query' accepts fuzzy conversational input and that 'city' may be resolved from the query, but it does not detail individual parameter interactions or syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Search for parking spaces from a conversational query.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_by_location and search_by_price by emphasizing conversational/fuzzy input and multi-source search, making its unique role explicit.

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 through phrases like 'conversational query' and 'fuzzy user input,' suggesting this is the tool for natural-language searches. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for structured queries, leaving the decision partially 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as result ordering, pagination behavior, or the fact that it may perform approximate matching to landmarks. The safety profile is covered by annotations, so a neutral score is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. There is zero wasted text, making it highly scannable.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and 13 sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how this differs from search_parkings or search, nor does it clarify the intent behind area_id, radius_km, or available_only filters. The tool's behavior in terms of what results are returned (e.g., parking vs areas) is also left unclear, making it incomplete for an AI agent to select confidently.

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 documents all 9 parameters, including search_term, limit, offset, radius_km, and city_slug. The description mentions 'location name or landmark', which maps to search_term but adds no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 'Search parking spaces by location name or landmark' clearly states the verb (search), the resource (parking spaces), and the specific scope (by location name or landmark), which distinguishes it from price-based or generic search tools like search_by_price and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_parkings or resolve_location. There is no mention of scenarios where one should prefer this over a sibling, nor any exclusions.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the search activity, such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or how filters combine. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it is extremely sparse and lacks any additional structure or context, so it is not a model of completeness.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no mention of return format or filtering behavior, the description is critically under-specified. It does not explain how the various filters (area_id, city_slug, radius_km, etc.) relate to the price search, nor what the response will look like. Users would need to rely heavily on the schema and make assumptions about the tool's behavior.

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 does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the 'price range' concept. The schema already describes min_rent and max_rent, but the description does not clarify how they interact or whether both are required.

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 clearly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('parking spaces'), and the filtering scope ('by price range'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools like search_by_location or search_parkings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the price range filter without explaining scenarios where this tool is preferred over other search tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 declare the tool read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or how availability filtering works.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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 many sibling search/list tools, the description is too minimal to help an agent confidently select this tool. It lacks sibling differentiation, usage context, and any mention of output or limitations, despite the schema and annotations being present.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the required area_slug. The description's 'by area' adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for covered parameters.

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 clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (parking spaces) with a scope ('by area'). It hints at differentiation from siblings like search_by_price, but does not explicitly distinguish it from search_by_location or list_available_parkings.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention that this tool is appropriate when an area_slug is known, or to exclude alternatives like search_by_price or list_available_parkings.

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