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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Look up' clearly signals a read-only operation, but the description adds no detail about edge cases (e.g., invalid slug), response shape, or any limitations. It is sufficient for a simple lookup but not rich in transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and the specific data categories. It contains no filler and 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with a well-described schema, the description covers the core purpose and data items. It does not mention output format or behavior for unknown jurisdictions, but the schema's jurisdiction_index reference mitigates the main ambiguity, making it nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, and the jurisdiction property already explains the slug format and points to jurisdiction_index. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('permit fees, turnaround, required docs') scoped to a jurisdiction. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_permits, so it misses the top score.

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 implies a use case: when you need permit information for a specific jurisdiction. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_permits or rebate_eligibility_check, and the only usage hint in the schema (use jurisdiction_index) is a prerequisite, not a comparison.

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