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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-covered behavior: a $0.25 USD charge, deterministic change fingerprints, source-snapshot digests, explicit timestamp semantics, disclosed source gaps, and a next-monitoring handoff. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, and the cost and core action are front-loaded. However, the long tail of comma-separated feature nouns (fingerprints, digests, observational summaries, timestamp semantics, source gaps, handoff) is dense and hard to parse, reducing scanability.

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-value detail is not required, yet the description enumerates outputs anyway while omitting the more important gaps: how to format address/since, and what 'resolved property' means operationally. Adequate for a read-only lookup but incomplete on input handling.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only gestures at 'since' as a caller-supplied timestamp; address, unit, city, and state semantics (e.g., whether unit is required for multi-unit buildings, whether city/state default to SF) are left entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Find timestamped changes') and an explicit resource scope (released SF permit, planning, enforcement, and permit-routing records for a resolved property), which separates it from single-domain siblings like check_permits or check_planning_activity. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it falls short of a 5.

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 since a caller-supplied timestamp' implies a prior resolution step and a timestamp precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative aggregate tool check_local_changes. Usage 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.