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 substantive traits: figures are never authored/invented, totals may be absent, values are sourced and dated and may be provisional, and status is one of verified-official/reported-secondary/unverified/null. It stops short of stating read-only nature, auth needs, or how the plan is scoped to a trail.

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?

The purpose clause is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a run of short clipped fragments with redundancy ('does not author fees' restated as 'does not invent figures'). It is not bloated, but several sentences could be merged without losing meaning.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job covering output semantics and null handling. However, it never explains what a 'plan' actually contains or when the tool should be chosen over its siblings, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding between the nine available tools.

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 there is a single required 'query' parameter, so the schema already defines it. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for the query beyond echoing the schema's 'no fee figures' constraint, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 phrase 'Structured permit plan from stored rows only' names the resource (a permit plan) but leaves the action vague and never distinguishes this from siblings like get_permit or get_provenance. Most of the description is output policy rather than a statement of what the tool does, so an agent must infer the core purpose.

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 and no alternatives are named, despite a crowded sibling set (get_permit, get_provenance, get_updates). Nothing tells the agent when to reach for a 'permit plan' versus fetching a single permit.

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