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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it guarantees no personal data is returned and clarifies the behavior for states with no collected data, going beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-load the primary output and scope while immediately addressing the optional parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema available and all parameters fully documented, the description covers the essential return contents, the parameter-driven behavior, and the privacy guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 description already fully documents the `state` parameter (pattern, examples, omit for national). The tool description adds the behavioral nuance that passing `state` yields 'collected coverage' and an explicit answer for empty states, enriching the semantic meaning beyond the formal 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 states a specific action ('Return current PermitReporter counts, route-status boundaries, record-date range and latest collection timestamp') and explicitly excludes personal data, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly differs from siblings like get_county_coverage (which likely focuses on counties) and get_permit_record (individual records), establishing its role as a statewide snapshot.

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 description explains when to use the `state` parameter versus omitting it for the national snapshot, and notes that state-level results include an explicit answer for uncollected jurisdictions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when this tool should not be used, leaving some inference required for sibling differentiation.

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