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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: results are privacy-minimized, raw payloads and party arrays are omitted, and empty results are explicitly defined as 'no matching record collected, not that no permit exists.' This is exactly the kind of boundary condition an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting an empty response.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: first sentence states the search capabilities, second gives coverage and county formatting, third clarifies empty-result meaning. Essential information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the rich annotations, output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers searchable fields, geographic coverage, privacy posture, and empty-result interpretation. A small gap is the lack of explicit statement about how multiple filters combine (AND vs OR), but this is common and inferable. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It does a good job mapping 'public text' to query, 'county' to county, 'city' to city, 'PermitReporter trade classification' to trade, and 'record-date range' to date_from/date_to. It omits the 'limit' parameter and does not specify exact date/text matching semantics, but the core parameter meaning is well conveyed.

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 identifies the tool as a search over collected building-permit records, with specific categorical filters (public text, county, city, trade, date range). It is specific enough to distinguish itself from siblings like get_permit_record or get_county_coverage, though it does not explicitly name an alternative -- which keeps it one step below the highest bar.

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 gives concrete operational guidance: coverage spans 34 states plus DC, and county naming conventions are described with examples ('Cobb' vs 'Los Angeles, CA'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools, so the 'when-not-to-use' half of usage guidance is absent, but the context is clear enough.

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