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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the $0.02 cost, the 20000 atomic USDC on Base denomination, and x402 payment flow — critical for an agent that must authorize spend. It stops short of saying whether results are estimates or authoritative legal determinations, which matters given the 'Likely' framing.

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, no filler, and the purpose precedes the pricing note — good front-loading. The only cost is that the first sentence is compressed to the point of grammatical awkwardness ('Likely permits and inspections for...'), which trades a little clarity for brevity.

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 read-only, schema-complete tool with payment implications, the description covers cost and inputs adequately. However, with no output schema, the description is the only place to indicate the shape of the response — whether it returns permit names, fees, agencies, or confidence levels — and it does not.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter including aliases, enum values, and the 200-character limit documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes that address, city, and project type are the inputs, adding no syntax or aliasing detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is correct here.

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 resource is identifiable — permits and inspections for a given address/city plus project type — but the verb is hedged with 'Likely,' which reads as an estimate qualifier rather than a clear action. An agent can guess the tool returns probable permit requirements, but the phrasing leaves ambiguity about whether this is a lookup or a prediction.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The sibling list (voice_rewrite, writing_grade, pipe_check, etc.) contains no adjacent permit/real-estate tool, so no differentiation is possible or offered — the definition simply presents the tool without routing guidance.

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