find_parking_facilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: results can be filtered by parking type, capacity info is included 'where available,' and the return list includes fee structure and access restrictions with similar caveats. This sets appropriate expectations about data availability and result composition, though it does not discuss real-time nature or error handling. The transparency is adequate for a read-only search tool.

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 purpose statement, usage context, an Args section, and a Returns section. Each part serves a purpose, especially given the lack of schema descriptions and output schema. It is front-loaded with the core function in the first sentence, and while longer than two sentences, it is appropriately sized for the information it must convey.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, return structure, and typical use cases. It covers all essential details a caller would need to invoke the tool correctly and understand the response, making it a self-contained usage manual.

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 0%, but the description's Args section compensates fully. It explains latitude/longitude as decimal degrees, radius in meters with the default '1000m/1km', and parking_type with examples like 'surface', 'underground', 'multi-storey'. This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults, making each parameter's purpose and format clear.

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 opens with 'Locate parking facilities near a specific location,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It clarifies the tool covers lots, garages, and street parking, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_nearby_places (generic) and find_ev_charging_stations (EV-specific). The purpose is unambiguous and accurately reflected in the tool 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?

The description states it is 'Useful for trip planning, city navigation, and evaluating parking availability in urban areas,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as 'for generic place search, use find_nearby_places instead.' This places it at 4 per the rubric: clear context but no exclusions.

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