Свободные места на парковке

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

Beyond the annotations (which already mark it read-only and non-destructive), the description discloses that the tool internally makes 4 requests (settings, buildings, past booking, recommendations), which is a significant performance trait. It also explains the reasoning behind the date behavior and what the response includes (buildings, booking window, default car, spots).

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 compact 4-sentence paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of fluff. Every sentence adds value: scope clarification, parameter defaults, internal behavior, and a pointer to the related booking tool. The structure is efficient despite the density.

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 tool's low parameter complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, how parameters behave, what data it returns, and how to proceed to booking. The mention of the 4 internal requests and the parking_book linkage make it contextually complete.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It explains both parameters: date defaults to tomorrow and why, and building_id falls back to the last booking or first building. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 returns free parking spots at the office for a given date, specifying it's for MyT, not the bank. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parking_book (booking) and office_bookings. The phrase 'чтобы ответить «где мне парковаться»' reinforces the purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on default parameter behavior: empty date means tomorrow because booking opens in advance, and empty building_id uses the last booking's building or the first from the list. It also directs the user to parking_book for the next step, effectively saying 'use this to check availability, use parking_book to book'.

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