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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It honestly discloses that loan absence is unverified and that this is a time-boxed watchlist re-checked as financing appears, which is critical behavioral context for a leads tool. The description adds transparency about limitations without contradicting any missing annotations.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the primary purpose and including essential transparency. The use of all caps for 'HONEST' is a bit stylized but not harmful. It could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the fields returned (permit amount, age, window status, applicant, work description) and covers the data's provenance and limitations. It is largely complete for a leads tool, though it could mention pagination or limit behavior.

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 low (33% for county), and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'minTier' parameters. It only repeats the county parameter's enum. The description adds no meaningful insight into parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states it provides fresh assessable construction permits entering the permit-to-financing window, targeting hard-money and construction lenders. The resource (construction permits) and verb (provides leads) are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like county_coverage or lien_bundle_report.

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?

Description implies the tool is for tracking construction permits for lending opportunities, with context about the permit-to-loan gap and Cook County. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though siblings are clearly different tools.

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