get_cfl_parking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool retrieves live data (read operation), but does not describe any additional behaviors such as data freshness, error handling, or response structure. Basic transparency but not thorough.

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?

A single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action and resource. Efficient for a simple tool.

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?

Despite low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description does not specify what 'details' are included, the expected format of the response, or any conditions for success. The agent would need additional knowledge to use this tool effectively.

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%, so the description should compensate. However, the description does not explain the parking_id parameter (e.g., source, format, example). It only implies it identifies a facility, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('live occupancy and details for a CFL Park and Ride facility'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_cfl_parking' which likely lists all facilities, but does not explicitly mention that a specific facility ID is required.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Context signals show sibling tools like list_cfl_parking but no explicit direction to first list facilities then get details of one. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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