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.