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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It honestly explains that 'stalled' is a STATUS+RECENCY inference, not verified work-stoppage, and notes potential false positives (paperwork lag, phased builds). It also clarifies that some counties return null. This is high transparency, though it lacks details on rate limits or auth.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but it is verbose and uses all-caps for emphasis, which may reduce readability. Some details (e.g., 'Cook County' repeated) could be trimmed. It earns its sentences but could be more concise.

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 3 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it lists output fields (permit amount, age, etc.), explains data source, and notes county limitations. It is complete enough for the tool's complexity, though parameter descriptions would improve it.

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 33% (only 'county' has a description). The tool has 3 parameters, but the description does not elaborate on 'limit' or 'minTier' beyond what the schema provides. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The output context is described, but parameter semantics are lacking.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: providing STALLED-PROJECT candidates for surety/draw-control firms and lenders. It specifies the criteria (large assessable building permits not closed past build window) and distinguishes it from a general permit stream by noting the inference and data source.

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 implies usage for Cook County only (county parameter is cook-il) and mentions that counties not exposing permit status return null. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'construction_window_leads' or 'overassessment_leads'. Context is provided but no direct guidance.

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