lyon_parking_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the output includes parking with available spaces 'if known', implying a read operation, but offers no details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or data freshness. The description is insufficient for understanding behavioral traits beyond the basic result.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and key details. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by omitting critical information about parameters and usage.

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 five parameters, a required nested object, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to provide the destination (e.g., format) or the meaning of other parameters like types or minimum_spaces. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden for return values, but parameter guidance is lacking.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'destination' implicitly and provides no explanation of limit, types, radius_m, minimum_spaces, or the structure of the destination object. This leaves the agent with no guidance on how to properly invoke the tool.

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 indicates the tool provides public parking and park-and-ride options near a destination, including available spaces if known. It effectively identifies the resource (parking) and scope (near destination) but lacks a verb like 'list' or 'find' to specify the action. It distinguishes from siblings like lyon_nearby_facilities by focusing on parking specifically.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With nine sibling tools including lyon_nearby_facilities and lyon_trip_options, explicit usage context or exclusion statements would be valuable but are absent.

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