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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: a $0.09 charge, that unsupported or held jurisdictions fail before payment, and that the property must be resolved. It does not discuss idempotency or repeat-call behavior, 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 the cost front-loaded and the routing guidance immediately after the purpose. Efficient, though "Use this for permit detail" is mildly redundant with the opening sentence.

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 the description covers cost, the resolution prerequisite, and failure behavior. It could say more about what "released coverage" means operationally, but it is sufficient to call correctly.

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 parameter (address, city, state, unit) is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion of a "resolved property" and jurisdiction support, not parameter-level syntax or format guidance.

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 ("Reconcile current official permit records") with an explicit scope constraint ("one resolved property where permit coverage is released"). It names the sibling tools it is not (check_permit_routing, build_property_intelligence_pack), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit alternatives with selecting conditions: check_permit_routing for San Francisco routing/holds, build_property_intelligence_pack for cross-source context, this tool for permit detail. Nothing is left to inference.

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