PropertyLabs

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that only fields allowed on the public permit page are returned, and that applicant and contractor identities are gated. This goes beyond simple CRUD semantics.

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 concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second specifies usage context, and the third discloses a limitation. No filler or repetition exists, and the key action 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description sufficiently addresses how to invoke it, when to use it, and what behavioral expectations to have. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so no further details are necessary. The description is complete and well-balanced.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including the numeric pattern and the URL-derived context. The description reiterates that the ID is numeric and canonical but does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema conveys, so 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 states the action ('Retrieve a permit') and identifies the exact inputs (numeric canonical permit ID and city slug). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search tools by specifying it is for permits already referenced by a public PropertyLabs URL.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this for a permit already referenced by a public PropertyLabs /permit/{city}/{id} URL'), which differentiates it from the sibling search tools. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or describe when one should use search instead, leaving a small gap.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the 'public field boundary' and explicitly listing excluded data (applicant names, contractor names, permit numbers), offering value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second gives the use case, and the third clarifies the scope of data returned. It is efficient, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, limitations, and data scope, and is well-supported by clear annotations and parameter documentation. For a simple two-parameter read-only search tool, no significant gaps remain.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (address and city) with examples and coverage is 100%. The description restates 'specific civic address' and 'specific city,' but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline 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 states the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'public PropertyLabs permit history for a specific civic address in a specific city,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is for address-level history and does not return applicant names, contractor names, or permit numbers, which helps an AI agent select it over get_public_permit.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for address-level construction history and activity,' providing a direct usage directive. It also explains what it does not return, signaling when to prefer a different tool (e.g., when permit numbers are needed) and implicitly contrasts with get_public_permit.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral nuance: results are aggregate and city-scoped, only party-field matches are counted, and anonymous access never returns raw records or identifying details. This goes well beyond the annotations and informs the agent about output limitations and matching granularity.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and packs in important constraints (aggregate, city-scoped, party-field matching, anonymous limitations) without wasted words. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, output schema present, annotations provided), the description fully covers purpose, scope, matching behavior, and key limitations. It explains what the tool returns and, crucially, what it never returns. The output schema handles return formatting, so no additional return-value explanation is needed.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (company and city) with 100% coverage. The description mentions 'city-scoped' and lists the party types for 'company', but these are redundant with the schema. No additional parameter-level semantics are added, so 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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('an aggregate, city-scoped sample of permit activity') and clearly identifies the matching criteria ('matching a developer, applicant, builder or contractor name'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the aggregate and city-scoped nature and the party-field matching, which contrasts with address-based or single-permit 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for aggregate permit activity by company name within a city. It also gives implicit exclusions ('never return company-matched project addresses, permit numbers, coordinates or raw records') and restrictions ('Anonymous results are aggregate only'), but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it. This is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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