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

Beyond the annotations, which already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial operational detail: the 25-result cap, total/total_capped/total_unknown semantics, account date-window clamping, HVAC/MECHANICAL category aliasing, issue-date-else-filing-date behavior, and the explicit absence of owner/applicant fields.

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 dense but appropriately sized for a 23-parameter search tool with no output schema. It is front-loaded with the searchable dimensions, then moves directly into return behavior and important edge cases, and each sentence contributes either scope, response semantics, or a caveat an agent needs.

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?

Given the complexity, the high schema coverage, the annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool safely. It explains return counts, result fields, coverage-window behavior, category aliasing, date ambiguity, and missing privacy-sensitive fields; the only notable omission is sibling routing guidance, which is captured under usage guidelines.

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 carries the main parameter documentation. The description still adds useful semantic quirks not fully captured there, especially category HVAC/MECHANICAL mutual matching, date_after/date_before falling back to whichever date is published, and the account-window limitation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search U.S. building permits, with a well-defined filter scope covering location, category, status, dates, value, contractor, and free text. It is distinguishable from a single-permit lookup, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as get_permit or get_contractor_permits.

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?

Usage is implied by the search-oriented purpose and filter list, so an agent can infer this is the tool for filtered permit searches. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to siblings like get_permit, get_contractor_permits, or get_property_history.

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