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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it names the data source ('dates on city permits'), mentions the number of permits and date coverage, and discloses that final-inspection times only count finished jobs. This is useful nuance that annotations do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core measurement, followed by a single important caveat. Both sentences carry distinct value with no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with high schema coverage and a descriptive title, the description covers the data source, the computed intervals, sample size, and a key methodological exclusion. Since there is no output schema, slightly more detail about the exact return shape would be useful, but the core calling context is complete.

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 100%, and both parameters already have enum values and descriptive text. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with the schema handling the meaning of city and kind_of_work, a baseline score of 3 is 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 description clearly specifies the tool's output: days from permit application to issue and from issue to final inspection, plus permit counts and date coverage. It identifies a concrete resource (city permits) and scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate' or 'return' and does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_cost or solar_estimate. The description implies its purpose through the title, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or sibling routing, so an agent has to infer the appropriate context.

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