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

Adds material behavior beyond annotations: a $0.25 USD charge and the fact that unsupported/held jurisdictions fail before payment, which matters since readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false imply a metered, non-repeatable call. It does not state whether retries are re-charged or how partial results are billed, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the cost and jurisdiction constraint are front-loaded. The opening price fragment is slightly clipped but functional rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers cost, jurisdiction support limits, and the sibling alternative, leaving only edge-case billing behavior unspecified for a metered lookup tool.

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 each property is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning (e.g., how city/state affect routing outcomes) beyond what the schema states.

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 (trace) and resource (released SF permit review routing, departments, holds, timing, outcomes), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling check_permits. An agent can distinguish it from the 13 siblings without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes: 'use this for administrative routing state; use check_permits for permit records', and states the precondition that unsupported or held jurisdictions fail before payment. Both when-to-use and a failure boundary are given.

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