İSPARK otoparkları: anlık boş yer, doluluk, konum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond those annotations: the two sorting modes (nearest by km or most empty spaces), the default limit of 30, and that data comes from the İBB Open Data Portal's web service. 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 compact but packed with information, front-loading the data fields before the sorting/filtering rules. It uses a single structured sentence with semicolons, which is efficient though slightly dense. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema (so return format is covered) and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description sufficiently covers parameter behavior, sorting, filtering, and defaults. It lacks only minor details like data freshness or pagination, but these are not critical for a read-only list 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?

Schema coverage is 83% (5 of 6 params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: explains the effect of enlem+boylam (sorting), ilce and ara (filtering), and the default for limit, which is not in the schema. This goes beyond what the schema 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 the tool retrieves live occupancy data for Istanbul's İSPARK car parks, listing specific fields like empty spots, capacity, occupancy percentage, open/closed status, working hours, and coordinates. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ibb_otopark_detay by implication (this is a list/search tool), but does not explicitly name the alternative or contrast them.

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 explains parameter-driven behavior (sorting by proximity or vacancy, filtering by district/name, default limit of 30) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ibb_otopark_detay. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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