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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the notable traits: this is a paid call at $0.10, settled via x402 in USDC on Base, and it returns aggregate job value and trade counts rather than raw records. It omits pagination behavior, result caps, and what happens for an unknown contractor_key.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads cost and payment rails. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description responsibly summarizes the return shape (permits plus total job value and trade counts) and adds the cost/payment context an agent needs before calling. It leaves gaps only around result volume, pagination, and error behavior.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents contractor_key formatting (license number, lower case). The description adds no further parameter detail, which is the baseline expectation here.

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 verb+resource: retrieving every permit a contractor has pulled, plus aggregate value and trade counts. This clearly separates it from sibling property_history (property-scoped) and get_permit (single permit), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 by the required contractor_key input and the contractor-centric framing, but the description never states when to prefer this over property_history or search_permits, nor any preconditions beyond payment. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer routing.

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