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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-destruction, and the description adds real context beyond them: it discloses that state-level code/authority/licensing content is conditional on the state argument and that results are typical, non-authoritative, and not legal advice. That reliability caveat is the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then usage, then limits, then a compact Args block for the two parameters. Every sentence does work and nothing is padded, though the prose sentence and the Args block overlap slightly in scope.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the state-conditional behavior plus the 'verify with local building department' caveat covers what an agent needs before calling. The only residual gap is the unmentioned enum constraint on services.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the load, and it does: it explains services is the set of planned jobs with an example list and that state is a two-letter code with an example, plus the conditional effect of supplying state. It omits that services is drawn from a fixed enum (13 allowed values), which the agent must infer from 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 first sentence states a specific verb (say whether... needs a permit) plus the resources returned (fees, state code, code authority, licensing resources), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name any sibling tool (check_quote, estimate_project, list_services) to draw a contrast, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

An explicit 'When to use' clause names the two triggering questions (does a job need a permit, how to check a contractor's license) and the 'Limits' clause tells the agent the output is typical-only and must be confirmed locally. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for adjacent questions like cost estimation.

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