get_contractor_leadsReturn recent, source-linked collected permits classified by trade and project scope for contractor research. Classifications are editorial signals, not official fields or guaranteed work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| trade | No | ||
| county | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results are 'source-linked' and 'Classifications are editorial signals, not official fields or guaranteed work,' which tells the agent about data provenance and reliability. This is meaningful disclosure not present in the structured metadata.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about editorial signals follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values do not need elaboration. The description appropriately warns that classifications are not guaranteed work. Still, with 0% parameter documentation and no usage guidance relative to four sibling lookup/search tools, the definition is not fully complete for an agent deciding among related tools.
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?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate, but it does not. It mentions classification 'by trade' which hints at the trade parameter, but provides no explanation of days, limit, county, or how filters combine. Defaults and bounds in the schema help, but the description leaves most parameter semantics unexplained.
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: 'Return recent, source-linked collected permits classified by trade and project scope for contractor research.' This distinguishes it as a research-oriented aggregation tool rather than a single-record or generic search tool. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like search_permits or get_permit_record, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The intended use case ('for contractor research') is stated, which gives some context for when the tool is appropriate. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternative sibling tools, so the agent must infer selections based on the title and phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools have overlapping purposes: `search` and `search_permits` both search for permits, differing only in that `search` also covers guidance. Similarly, `fetch` and `get_permit_record` both retrieve records, with unclear boundary between them. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a clear `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `create_permit_watch`, `get_county_coverage`), but `fetch` and `search` are generic and deviate from that pattern, creating a mixed convention. Still, the names are readable and mostly predictable.
With 8 tools, the count is well within the typical 3-15 range and matches the server's scope of permit search, retrieval, and coverage. It feels slightly heavy due to redundant tools, but not excessive.
The tool surface covers search, retrieval, coverage, and leads, but lacks any management of permit watches (no list, update, or delete). This is a notable gap since `create_permit_watch` exists, leaving an incomplete lifecycle.