İSPARK otopark ayrıntısı: tarife, adres, aylık abonelik

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context by mentioning 'güncelleme zamanı' (update time) and 'anlık boş yer' (live empty spaces), signaling that the data may be time-sensitive. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded with the key detail fields. The bilingual repetition (Turkish and English) adds slight redundancy, but both sentences are informative and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's simple scope.

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 one-parameter read-only detail tool with a rich output schema and clear sibling relationship, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke it correctly. It names the source of the id and the expected content of the result, so no critical context is missing.

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%, and the sole parameter `id` is already described as coming from the `ibb_otopark` response. The description reinforces this by saying 'by its id (from `ibb_otopark`)' but does not add new parameter-level semantics 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 returns details of one İSPARK car park by its id, enumerating specific fields: address, hourly tariff, monthly subscription fee, update time, and live empty spaces. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `ibb_otopark` by explicitly referencing that list as the source of the id.

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 phrase 'by its id (from `ibb_otopark`)' implies the tool should be used after obtaining an id from the list endpoint, providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the relationship to `ibb_otopark` is sufficient guidance.

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