get_city_parking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get,' indicating a read operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or behaviors in edge cases (e.g., no data for a query). The one-line description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral traits beyond the basic retrieval.

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 sentence of 11 words, which is concise but at the expense of necessary details. It front-loads the core purpose but omits parameter explanations and usage context. It could be slightly longer to include critical information without becoming verbose.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and the presence of 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify what 'query' accepts (e.g., address, car park name), the meaning of 'available_only,' or the format of the response. The tool has a specific scope (city parking) and sibling tools with overlapping domains, but the description does not help the agent discriminate 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain either parameter ('query' or 'available_only'). The agent is left to guess that 'query' is a parking location and 'available_only' filters by availability, with no confirmation or format details. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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 retrieves current car-park capacity and free spaces for Ville de Luxembourg. The verb 'Get' and specific resource distinguish it from siblings like get_cfl_parking (CFL parking) and get_city_mobility (broader mobility).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for city parking data, but does not mention alternatives or contexts where other tools (e.g., get_cfl_parking) are more appropriate. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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