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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the payment requirement: $0.05 per call settled via x402 with USDC on Base, plus the newest-first ordering. That is genuinely useful operational context an agent must have before invoking, though pagination/volume behavior for a potentially large permit list is not disclosed.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the result scope is front-loaded ahead of the cost note. Nothing here is redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, ordering, and the unusual pay-per-call model. It leaves unaddressed how large the result set can be and what happens when no permits match the address.

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%, with both `address` and `zip` documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the implicit notion that address is the primary key and zip is a narrowing hint, which the schema already conveys.

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: returns every permit recorded at a single street address, with ordering ('newest first'). It contrasts implicitly with contractor_history by being address-keyed, but never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like search_permits or get_permit.

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 only implied: the phrase 'one street address' suggests using this when you already have a specific address rather than a search term. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, even though search_permits is an obvious competing choice.

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