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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful data caveat: "Owner names excluded" — a field-level coverage limitation an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema, and it constrains what answers the tool can support.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the data source and scope front-loaded and the privacy caveat last. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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 read-only open-world data tool with no required params and no output schema, the description covers source, filters, and a data caveat. It is slightly incomplete on default behavior (does source default to both counties? what is the default limit?) but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so all five parameters (to, from, limit, source, keyword) are already documented with formats and constraints. The description adds only that date and keyword filtering exist, plus the word "Recent" hinting at a default recency window, but does not cover limit or source semantics. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: recent building permits from two named sources (Miami-Dade County and Fort Lauderdale open data). The scope and filterability are clear. It does not explicitly position itself against fl_contractor_licenses or federal_awards, but the resource distinction is obvious from the names.

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?

"Filterable by date and keyword" implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no indication of what happens with no filters at all, and no mention of the source parameter's role in scoping. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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