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 real traits beyond the schema: result ordering ('Newest first'), a hard per-call cap ('up to 25 per call'), and a concrete paywall ('$0.02 per call, x402, USDC on Base'). It stops short of explaining paging behavior via offset or what an empty/over-limit result looks like, so it is useful but not complete.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the ordering/cap and pricing constraints. Nothing repeated from the schema is wasted.

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 10-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, sort order, cap, and cost, but omits the return shape (permit fields) and how offset paging interacts with the 25-item ceiling. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to discover by calling.

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%, so each of the 10 parameters (limit range, trade enum values, since/until format, jurisdiction key) is already documented in the schema. The description's facet list restates those fields without adding format or interaction semantics, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Search new building permits') plus the facets it can search on (trade, job value, date, zip, city), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_permit or sample_permits, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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: 'search' plus facet list suggests this is the query tool for permits, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no condition for choosing it over sample_permits (preview) or get_permit (single record), and no mention of a required prerequisite such as first calling coverage for jurisdiction keys.

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