Get an authority's restriction data

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: it returns links and never downloads the underlying documents, and those documents 'can be very large'. That prevents an agent from expecting inline payloads. It doesn't add auth or rate-limit context, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then a second sentence carrying the important non-downloading constraint. Dense but every clause earns its place; the enumerated data surfaces make the first sentence long but informative rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: the authority record plus links, the categories behind those links, and the fact that the documents themselves are not inlined. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly and interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the slug source and the contact-detail redaction behavior. The description adds only the temporal framing for max_date ('optionally as they stood at max_date') and says nothing about include_contact_details, so it stays at the baseline for a fully described schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get the authority record plus links to its full restriction data) and enumerates the data surfaces covered: zones, on-street parking bays/lines, sets and moving-traffic features. It also names list_authorities as the source of the required slug, which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_zone_rules or find_parking_rules_near.

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?

It implies when to reach for it (you have an authority slug and want the entry point to all of that authority's published restriction data) and points to list_authorities for the slug. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the narrower siblings such as get_zone_rules or get_parking_entity instead, so no exclusions are stated.

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