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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context about defaults (available_only=true), the potential conflict with include_unavailable, radius behavior, or pagination semantics.

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 wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it also reflects the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 9-parameter search tool with multiple modes (area anchoring, city filtering, nearby radius, availability toggles) and many sibling search/list tools. The one-sentence description is not complete enough for an agent to choose among those modes without studying the schema.

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 all 9 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description mentions location name or landmark, which maps loosely to the required search_term, but it adds no meaning 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 gives a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("parking spaces") and narrows the query dimension to "location name or landmark." That implicitly distinguishes it from search_by_price, but it does not explicitly name or route against the many search/list siblings.

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?

It implies usage by name, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with search, search_parkings, list_nearby_areas, or checkbox-style availability tools. An agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the tool name.

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