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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: an explicit per-call price of $0.10 USDC, the four accepted payment chains (x402; Base, Solana, Polygon, Arbitrum), and the no-charge-on-no-match rule. That billing behavior is exactly the kind of detail an agent needs and is not in the schema or annotations. It omits result-size or pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short clauses with no waste: the capability claim is front-loaded and the cost caveat follows. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is queried, the cost, and the no-match case. It is only mildly incomplete in not indicating the shape of returned permit records or any result cap.

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 50%: 'address' is documented with an example while 'zip' has only a regex pattern and no explanation of whether it is optional or how it interacts with address. The description's phrase 'at a street address' reinforces the required parameter but says nothing about the optional zip, so it neither compensates for nor worsens the schema gap.

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 retrieval verb and resource: every known building permit at a street address. The scope phrase 'in any covered area' bounds it, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling search_permits, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and none of the six siblings (search_permits, count_permits, permit_stats, permit_trends) are referenced as alternatives. The agent must guess whether this is for a single-address lookup versus broader querying.

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