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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: data is sourced only from stored rows, figures are never fabricated, and null is returned when data is absent. What is missing is any sense of the shape of the returned plan, but that gap is modest.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by usage context and behavioral guarantees. There is mild redundancy between "from stored rows only" and "returns null when not stored," but nothing is padded.

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 one documented parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, data provenance, and null semantics — enough to call it correctly. A more concrete idea of what a "structured permit plan" contains would close the remaining gap.

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 the single parameter is documented as "Trail name or permit question. No fee figures." The description adds no syntax, format, or example guidance for the query beyond what the schema already states, so this sits at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 — returns a structured permit plan from stored rows — and adds a scope qualifier (multi-trail permit checklist) that separates it from geometry-returning siblings like get_geojson. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, get_permit, so it falls short of 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?

"Use when the user needs a multi-trail permit checklist, not raw trail geometry" gives a clear use condition plus an implicit exclusion that routes geometry requests elsewhere. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (get_geojson, get_permit) explicitly, which is what a 5 would require.

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