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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked and include trigger signals and project details, but says nothing about scoring mechanics, data freshness/latency, or result caps beyond what the schema states.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description wisely summarizes the return shape (ranked leads with trigger signals and project details). For a read-only, six-parameter search tool this is nearly complete; only scoring transparency and result-freshness details are left implicit.

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 six parameters (trade enum, city, days_back, min_score, max_results, min_project_value) are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description's trade list loosely mirrors the enum but adds no syntax or interpretation beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (find newly issued Horry County construction permits) and the value proposition (leads for specified contractor trades). An agent can distinguish this from the unrelated siblings (health, square) without opening the schema.

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 frames the tool as a lead-discovery tool for contractors, which implies when it applies, and the schema caps the search window at 30 days. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives for broader or non-Horry-County searches.

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