find_parking_facilities

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the return format including name, type, capacity (if available), fee structure (if available), access restrictions, and distance. It also clarifies that capacity information is provided 'where available,' setting expectations for incomplete data.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, usage context, and clear Args/Returns sections. Minor redundancy exists between the first two sentences ('Locate parking facilities' and 'This tool finds parking options'), but the overall length is appropriate.

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?

The description covers all four parameters and the return list structure, which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity. It lacks explicit mention of result ordering or empty-result behavior, but these are minor gaps.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the Args section explains each parameter: latitude/longitude as decimal degrees, radius with default of 1000m, and parking_type with example values. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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?

Description opens with 'Locate parking facilities near a specific location,' a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on parking lots/garages/street parking, unlike broader tools like find_nearby_places or find_ev_charging_stations.

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 states it is 'Useful for trip planning, city navigation, and evaluating parking availability in urban areas,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but its specificity to parking and mention of filters gives practical guidance.

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