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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety or mutability signal, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says to 'park' a want and gives no information about side effects, persistence, idempotency, or what happens after parking. The phrase 'old style' hints at legacy behavior but does not explain it.

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 short and front-loads the core action before giving routing guidance. 'Old style' is slightly cryptic but not bloated; every sentence earns its place in a compact definition.

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 three-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient to invoke it correctly. However, it does not explain what 'park' returns, whether email is needed for notifications, or how this relates to siblings like park_intent and want, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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 three parameters. The description adds minor semantic color—'plain words' maps to description and 'most they'd pay' maps to max_price_usd—but provides no format, constraints, or edge-case guidance 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 says to 'park what your human wants in plain words with the most they'd pay,' which conveys the resource and action in a loose, jargon-heavy way. The verb 'park' is not clearly defined as creating or storing a want, and the description does not distinguish this from the sibling 'park_intent' or 'want' beyond the vague 'old style' phrase.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer want with a link,' which gives clear routing guidance toward an alternative tool when a link is available. It does not state exact conditions or exclusions, but the preference is useful enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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