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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds domain context about what content the guidance covers (jurisdiction split, overlays, historic district), but says nothing about response shape, sourcing, or limits when data is unavailable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope first and the covered topics enumerated; no filler. It is a fragment rather than a sentence with a verb, but the information density is high and nothing 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 read-only guidance tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description adequately conveys topic coverage. It does not address what happens if zip and town are omitted or conflict, which matters given zero required parameters.

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 coverage is only 33% (project_type is documented with examples; zip and town have no descriptions). The description partially compensates by framing the tool's geography and the county-vs-city distinction that zip/town are clearly meant to resolve, but it never states how the two location inputs interact or that both are optional.

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?

Names a specific resource (permit guidance) plus a precise geographic scope (Annapolis / Anne Arundel County) and enumerates the topics covered: county vs city jurisdiction, Land Use Navigator, Critical Area, historic district. That is well beyond a restated title and is clearly distinct from siblings like check_service_area or get_company_overview.

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 geographic and topical scope tells the agent this is for local permitting questions in this jurisdiction. There is no statement of when to prefer it over siblings, no preconditions, and no note on what it is not for (e.g. state-level or non-permit questions).

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