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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioural facts: exactly three records, a 30-60 day recency window, single-area scoping, and that the call is free. What is not stated is whether the sample is random or the newest three, which matters for anyone drawing inference from it.

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?

A single sentence with the core scope and the incentive front-loaded, and no filler. Every clause (count, recency, scope, price) carries information 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what it returns (three records), the window, and the scope. It stops short of describing the record fields or whether the tool can be used for any aggregate reasoning, which a genuinely complete definition would mention.

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 both parameters carry enums plus descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the constraint of one jurisdiction with an optional category but adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema.

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 names the exact resource (permit records), the return size (three), the recency window (30-60 days ago) and the scoping (one area, optionally one category), which is far more specific than the title. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_permits/count_permits by being a tiny fixed sample, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"to see the data before paying. Free." gives a clear context of use: pre-purchase inspection / trial. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for full-data needs, but the sampling scope makes the boundary reasonably obvious.

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