get_parking_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '조회합니다' clearly conveys a read-only query and the description enumerates the returned information (capacity, hours, fees). However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid IDs, data freshness, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the specific data categories returned. Every word adds value and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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?

For a single-parameter detail lookup, the description provides the main return categories and is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter guidance, it leaves gaps around usage context, invalid ID behavior, and whether the data is real-time.

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%, and the description does not mention parking_lot_id at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema description by explaining where the ID comes from or how to use it, which is a clear gap.

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 Korean description uses a specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) with a clear resource: detailed parking lot information including available capacity, operating hours, and fees. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_parking_lots (discovery) or recommend_parking (recommendation), as it is explicitly a detail lookup.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving details about a specific parking lot, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention that find_parking_lots should be used first to locate lots, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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