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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: a specific $0.25 USD paid cost and the SF-jurisdiction limitation. It does not mention auth or rate limits, keeping it 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?

One sentence, cost and scope front-loaded, zero filler. Every clause (paid cost, verb, jurisdiction, resource, precondition) 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and cost/scope are covered. However, with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage routing, an agent still lacks enough to compose a correct call confidently beyond the required address.

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 0% and all four parameters (address, city, unit, state) are undocumented anywhere. The description compensates only obliquely with 'for a resolved property', giving no format, granularity, or required-vs-optional insight beyond what the schema's type tags already show.

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 states a specific verb ('trace') plus a concrete resource ('building-permit review routing, departments, holds, timing, recorded review results'), which is more than the name's tautology. It implies SF-only scope, distinguishing it somewhat from siblings, but never names the tool it is not (e.g., check_permits or check_planning_activity).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. The phrase 'for a resolved property' is the only usage signal, hinting that a property must be resolved (likely via resolve_jurisdiction) before calling, which 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.