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

Annotations already define readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context about scanning five fixed Socrata datasets and returning evidence-backed signals, and mentions pricing, but it does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, or rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not particularly rich.

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 description is a single, information-dense sentence followed by a pricing note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero redundant words. Every phrase ('Detect', 'five fixed Socrata datasets', 'evidence-backed signals') earns its place.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'evidence-backed signals' looks like, how the parameters influence output, or any additional context about the datasets. However, the schema fully covers parameters, and annotations cover safety, so the description is just sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 description itself provides no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents parameters like maxResults, lookbackDays, and freshnessMinutes, leaving no gap that the description needs to fill.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Detect') and identifies a clear resource ('commercial permit and license openings from five fixed Socrata datasets'), which fully distinguishes this tool from siblings like restaurant-booking-gap-lead-finder or lead-list-cleaner. The title and description align to convey exactly what the tool does.

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?

The usage context is implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention scenarios such as 'use when you need permit leads' or 'not for residential permits'.

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