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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that output content is conditional on whether a state is provided and that results are advisory guidance rather than legal advice, but it says nothing about data freshness, coverage limits, or failure modes.

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 first sentence front-loads the full payload and the conditional behavior; the Args block is short, labeled, and gives an example per parameter. No filler sentences.

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 values need not be explained, and the description still previews what comes back. With a simple two-parameter read tool, the definition is essentially complete; only usage routing against sibling tools is absent.

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 must carry the load, and it does: it defines services as the planned services with concrete examples and state as a two-letter US state code with an example, plus the note that state is what unlocks the state-specific code and licensing sections.

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 a specific verb and resource: it tells you whether each planned service needs a permit, with typical fees and, when a state is supplied, the state's code/authority/licensing resources. That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like estimate_project or check_quote, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among check_quote, compare_tiers, estimate_project, or list_services. The scoping note 'general guidance, not legal advice' is a liability caveat, not usage guidance.

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