parking_zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing time-dependent behavior (tariff changes since 4 April 2025, VAT from 1 June 2026, cash phase-out) and the free-period rules, which materially affects how an agent should answer.

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?

Content is front-loaded and every block (tariffs, VAT, free periods, SMS format, Mawaqif disambiguation) carries real information. It is dense and reads more like an FAQ excerpt than a tight tool definition, but nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 zero-parameter reference tool with an output schema (so return structure needn't be explained), the description covers the domain facts an agent needs. The main omission is an explicit statement of what the tool returns versus what it merely summarizes.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description contradicts the 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?

The description names the specific resource and its scope: Dubai parking zones, tariffs, VAT, free periods, and the mParking shortcode. It is not a tautology and it clearly distinguishes itself from the Abu Dhabi 'Mawaqif' system. It stops short of stating an explicit verb (e.g., 'returns reference data for'), so it is clear but not perfectly framed.

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?

Usage is only implied. The 'CRITICAL' note effectively tells the agent when NOT to use this (Abu Dhabi/Mawaqif queries), which is genuinely helpful routing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement nor routing to relevant siblings like rta_salik_tariff for tolls or nol_card_guide for Nol cards.

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