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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the output changes with auth state (full jurisdiction listing signed-in vs. totals only otherwise), results are capped at 25 and ordered largest-first, and `data_through` semantics are defined. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description layers on the conditional and pagination behavior an agent needs.

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 sentences that front-load purpose, then conditional behavior, then the fallback case. The `data_through` parenthetical is well-placed and no sentence is wasted; density serves clarity rather than obscuring it.

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 does the heavy lifting by describing returned fields, filtering, and pagination ordering. The only soft gap is that 'up to 25 per call' implies paging but there is no offset/cursor param, so how an agent retrieves jurisdictions beyond the first 25 is left unaddressed.

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% and both params (name, state) are fully documented, so the baseline is a 3. The description's 'filterable by state and by name' mostly restates the schema, adding only the useful nuance that filtering applies to the signed-in jurisdiction listing.

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?

A specific verb ('Describe') plus a clearly bounded resource ('PermitStack's coverage') enumerating what is returned: total permits, jurisdictions by status, and states. The purpose is unambiguous, though it never names a sibling to distinguish itself from search_permits or search_contractors — an agent infers the 'metadata vs. records' split on its own.

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?

It explains the signed-in vs. anonymous behavior, which implies this is a discovery/orientation call, but it never states when to reach for it over search_permits or search_contractors. No explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance is given; the routing is left to inference.

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