Find parking near a location

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: results are sorted nearest first, sourced from OpenStreetMap, and limited to publicly accessible places unless include_private is set.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function, then covers input, output, and filtering behavior efficiently.

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 read-only lookup tool with rich schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: data source, geographic scope, input modes, output content, sorting, and the privacy filter. Minor gaps like error behavior or data freshness are not critical given the openWorldHint and readOnly annotations.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters including lat/lon, place, format, include_private, and search_radius_m. The description summarizes the input options and output fields, adding a little useful framing, but does not need to compensate heavily for missing parameter documentation.

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: find car parks, laybys, and rest areas from OpenStreetMap near a UK point. It also lists the returned fields (name, type, distance, fee, access notes), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like find_takeoff_spots or geocode.

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 gives clear input guidance: use a place name, postcode, or lat/lon, and explains the public-access default with include_private as an override. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full usage-routing guidance.

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