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

Annotations already declare readOnly and closed-world, so the description focuses on what they can't say: this is a paid call costing $1.00 in USDC via x402 across four chains, and it is free when nothing matches. That pricing/no-match behavior is exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs before invoking, though payment mechanics (how the 402 response is settled) are not spelled out.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by returned fields and pricing. No filler, though the return-field enumeration makes it slightly breathless to parse.

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 what comes back (permit counts, declared job value, work mix, busiest zips, phone where published) and covers cost. Minor gaps remain on what 'limit' bounds and whether results are ranked.

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% and jurisdiction already points to list_coverage. The description adds only the mapping of 'permit type' to the category parameter and restates the 7-90 day window already encoded as min/max; the 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both places.

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 resource and scope: ranked contractors in one area over a bounded look-back window, optionally narrowed to one permit type. It is clearly not a permit-listing tool like search_permits or permit_stats, though it never names a sibling to reinforce the distinction.

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 ('busiest contractors in one area ... optionally for one permit type') but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as permit_stats or permit_trends. The jurisdiction schema hint points to list_coverage, which partially compensates.

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