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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the response deliberately omits owner contact details, which matters given siblings like get_owner_contact_access and redeem_token_for_owner_contact exist. It stops short of describing result fields or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the resource, the scope, and the privacy guarantee with no filler. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place to convey what a history entry contains (dates, amounts, parking references, pagination). It covers scope and privacy but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified, which is a real gap for a listing 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter detail is missing or needed.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (parking token history) scoped to the authenticated customer, which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like get_my_token_wallet and list_my_token_orders. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of 5.

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 only implied by the word 'history' and the 'authenticated customer' scoping; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as the wallet or orders tools. An agent can infer the purpose but must reason about the boundary itself.

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