check_tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it scrapes external portals, which is useful context aligning with openWorldHint. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, potential failures, or what 'check' entails (e.g., does it return ticket details?).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence defines the action and the second specifies the default plate behavior. Both are front-loaded and earn their place.

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 tool with 2 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description is adequate but lacks detail on what the tool returns (no output schema exists). It also doesn't mention any limitations, error cases, or the structure of results, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret the outcome.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only adds the default behavior for the plate parameter, but provides no extra information for the city parameter or the semantics of the plate value beyond what the schema states.

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?

Clear verb (check) and resource (parking tickets) with a concrete implementation detail (scraping city violation portals). It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_dispute or submit_dispute, but doesn't explicitly contrast with analyze_ticket or check_status.

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 specifies a default behavior: 'Checks all saved plates if no plate specified.' This implicitly guides usage around the optional plate parameter, but it doesn't name alternative tools or specify when to avoid this one.

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