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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond them: the 25-per-page cap and, notably, the fields deliberately absent from results (no owner name, owner mailing address, or applicant name), which prevents an agent from promising data it cannot get here.

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?

Three dense sentences: purpose and identifier source first, then return shape, then the explicit field exclusions. There is no filler, and the most important constraints are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return contents (work history fields: dates, categories, values) and their gaps, plus page sizing. The only remaining soft spot is the page-vs-start interaction, which the schema covers but the description does not reinforce.

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 100%, and the schema already documents page, start, per_page limits, and that contractor_id comes from search_contractors results. The description's mention of the UUID source and the 25-per-page ceiling largely restates that, adding little new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the permits pulled by one contractor') with an explicit scope restriction to a single contractor rather than all permits. It names search_contractors as the source of the required identifier, which helps distinguish it from that sibling. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_permits, the closest alternative for permit queries.

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 gives clear entry conditions: you must already have a contractor UUID obtained from search_contractors, which establishes the tool chain an agent needs. It stops short of naming a when-not case or pointing to search_permits for property- or address-based queries, so the routing guidance is good but not complete.

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