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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the result cap (100 per call), the exact price ($0.05 USDC), the accepted payment rails and chains (x402; Base, Solana, Polygon, Arbitrum), and that no charge applies when nothing matches. These are exactly the behavioral facts annotations cannot carry and that materially affect whether an agent invokes the tool.

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 dense sentences: the first front-loads the resource, its output fields and its filters; the second carries the cost and cap caveats. Nothing is wasted, though the field enumeration could be trimmed since it partially duplicates the schema.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and states the per-call cap, and the pricing line covers the payment model. It is slightly incomplete on scope: 'newly issued' has no defined recency window, and the fact that jurisdiction is the only required parameter is left to the schema.

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 75% with enums documented for category and jurisdiction, so the schema does most of the work. The description restates the filter set (area, category, city, zip, dates, minimum value) and the limit cap, but adds no syntax, defaults or interaction rules beyond that.

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 resource (newly issued building permits) and enumerates both returned fields and filter dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool yields. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like count_permits, permit_stats or permit_history_for_address, which keeps it below 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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool instead of count_permits, permit_stats or permit_history_for_address, and no preconditions beyond the implicit need for a jurisdiction. The only routing hint ('Use list_coverage for names') lives in the schema, not the description.

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