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.