find_parking_lots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add some behavioral context: it reveals that the search can key off either a destination name or coordinates, and it specifies that answers must include availability_summary, distance_summary, and a KakaoMap link. However, it does not disclose data source, freshness, no-result behavior, or side effects — acceptable for a read-only lookup but not a thorough disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the answer-format instruction earns its place given there is no output schema to convey what the response should contain.

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?

A 7-parameter tool with 0 required params, no annotations, and no output schema needs far more guidance than this provides. The description covers the coordinate/name search basis and response components but omits the meaning of four parameters, when to prefer siblings, and what a result set looks like.

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 must compensate, but it only clarifies the destination and latitude/longitude parameters. address, radius_m, realtime_status, and parking_lot_code are left unexplained — including the default of radius_m (700) and the meaning of the realtime_status enum 0–3 — so an agent cannot confidently construct correct calls for all inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('finds nearby parking lots') and identifies the search basis (destination name or coordinates). This clearly separates it from get_parking_detail, estimate_wait_time, and analyze_parking_congestion, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the overlapping-sounding sibling recommend_parking.

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 given on when to use this tool versus search_destination (for finding/validating a place) or recommend_parking (for choosing among lots). The response-format instruction ('show availability_summary, distance_summary, KakaoMap link') is about answer presentation, not tool selection, so an agent gets little help deciding between siblings.

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