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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful trait beyond structured data: this is a paid call ($0.01 per call, x402/USDC on Base). It also implies a read of full change history. It stops short of permissions, error behavior on unknown permits, or whether payment is automatic, which holds it at a 3.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the purpose is front-loaded before the billing note. Nothing repeats the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does sketch the payload (permit plus every recorded change to status, value, issue date) and the cost model. Missing only edge-case behavior for invalid source/permit_number, which is minor for a single-record read.

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 100%, and both parameters (source, permit_number) have example values in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 precise resource and scope: a single permit plus the full change history of its status, value and issue date. 'One permit' implicitly contrasts with search_permits/sample_permits, but it never names a sibling or uses an explicit verb, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent to pick this over search_permits for a known permit_number, nor what prerequisites exist. The only usage-adjacent content is billing, not selection guidance.

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