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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: a $0.10 USD cost, the "current official" data-freshness guarantee, and the dependency on a resolved property. It still omits what happens on failure or an unresolved address, so not 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?

Two short sentences with the price front-loaded and no filler — well structured for a terse tool card. Slightly under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing is wasted.

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 needn't be described, but for a paid, open-world tool with 0% parameter documentation the card leaves real gaps: what "resolved" means and how to achieve it, and no routing to sibling checks. The cost and freshness notes are the only substantive additions.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely doesn't. "Resolved property" weakly implies the address is the key input, but it never explains why city/state/unit are separate or their formats.

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?

It names a resource ("official permit records") that is distinguishable from siblings like check_code_enforcement or check_zoning_context, but the verb "Reconcile" is ambiguous — it doesn't clarify whether the tool fetches, verifies, or diffs records. No explicit differentiation from the many other check_* tools is given.

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?

"For a resolved property" hints at a precondition but never states when to use this versus check_permit_routing, check_planning_activity, or the umbrella development_due_diligence. No when-not guidance, no mention of the resolution step the agent must perform first.

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