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.