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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the returned attribute set (shuttle, valet, keys kept, EV charging, distance, date checked), an explicit negative disclosure about prices, and the underlying data source.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then phrasings, then the price exclusion and data source. The middle attribute list is long and slightly list-like, but every item describes an actual returned field rather than padding, so it mostly earns its space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the fields. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering the single input, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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% for the single 'airport' parameter, which already documents that IATA codes and city names are accepted. The description adds only a loose geographic constraint ('European airport'), which is marginal added meaning over the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource (which car parks serve a European airport and what they offer) and enumerates the offered attributes, so the agent knows exactly what this tool answers. It also distinguishes itself from airport_price_snapshot by scope, not just by name.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants to know which car parks serve...'), three concrete example phrasings including a non-English one, and an explicit exclusion routing price queries to airport_price_snapshot. Nothing is left to inference.

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