get_county_coverageReturn the current source route, issuer, cadence, lag, through-date, collected record count, sources and statistical floor for one covered US county. Call this before interpreting a missing county result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| county | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful list of returned fields and the purpose, but does not go deeper into behaviors like data staleness or errors. Since annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate; no contradiction.
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 tightly written sentences that front-load the list of returned fields and then give a clear call-to-action. No wasted words or repetition.
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 are covered. But the description fails to clarify the parameter format and any coverage caveats (e.g., what constitutes a 'covered' county). This leaves a notable gap for correct invocation, even though the tool itself is simple.
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 0% and the description only says 'for one covered US county' without specifying the expected format (e.g., FIPS code, name, case sensitivity). This is a significant gap because the agent must infer how to populate the 'county' parameter.
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 it returns coverage metadata (source route, issuer, cadence, etc.) for a specific US county, and immediately provides the use-case context ('Call this before interpreting a missing county result'). This makes it distinct from siblings like get_statewide_snapshot and get_permit_record.
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?
It provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this before interpreting a missing county result.' However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks the full when/when-not guidance that would merit a 5.
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.