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

The description discloses important side effects and operational constraints beyond what annotations provide: it starts an Apify Actor using APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, returns at most 1,000 rows, and does not modify government records. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives exclusions, and the third covers operational behavior, timeout, limits, and side effects. Every sentence earns its place without redundant filler.

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?

The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use the tool and to understand invocation consequences: authentication, usage cost, timeout, result cap, and non-modification of government records. Parameter details are already fully covered in the schema, so no important selection or invocation context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the input schema: cities, status, and maxRecordsPerCity all have meaningful descriptions and defaults. The main description adds no further parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb with a clear resource: 'Use for municipal building, property, and code-violation research in supported jurisdictions.' It also names what this tool is not for, STR licensing and restaurant health inspections, which distinguishes it from relevant sibling tools even without opening their 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool, when not to use it, and points to alternatives: 'Do not use for STR licensing or restaurant health inspections; choose the corresponding permit or inspection tool.' An agent can route correctly based on this guidance alone.

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