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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond them: it discloses exactly what data is returned ('name, license where the state publishes one, job count...') and explains the ranking meaning ('by volume on the public record, not quality or reviews'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists the output fields, and the third clarifies the ranking basis. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the return fields and clarifies the ranking criterion. It does not mention response format or how the 'limit' parameter affects the output, but those are sufficiently covered in the schema and the description's field list gives an agent enough to use the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already documents; it only implicitly references 'this kind' and 'their city permit record,' which are already explained in the parameter descriptions. No extra compensation needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Contractors ranked by how many jobs of this kind their city permit record shows.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'search_contractor_records' by focusing on ranking by permit volume rather than general search, and it lists distinct output fields (name, license, job count, etc.) that define its identity.

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 description provides clear context on when to use this tool: when the agent needs a ranked list of contractors by public permit volume. It also gives a specific when-not: 'not quality or reviews.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state conditions for choosing them, so it falls short of a 5.

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