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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior (up to 25 records per page, newest first), the meaning of `has_more`, the limited-account date-range caveat with `account_window_from` and `_notes`, and the absence of owner/applicant fields. This adds substantial behavioral context that an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core lookup purpose, then layers on matching rules, return shape, pagination, and caveats. Every sentence carries useful information, though the density and length make it slightly heavier than ideal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does: property profile contents, permit timeline, category breakdown, contractors, pagination, and limited-account caveats. That is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including address format, optional city/state/ZIP, page, start, and per_page. The description reinforces address matching and duplicate-address narrowing, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: permit history for one property, looked up by street address. It clearly distinguishes a single-property lookup from broader search tools through the phrase 'one property' and by noting it covers all permit categories. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives useful contextual guidance: optional city, state, and ZIP narrow ambiguous addresses, and limited-account date ranges affect result completeness. However, it does not say when to use this instead of get_permit or search_permits, so usage is only implied rather than routed explicitly.

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