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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the four-city coverage and statutory basis, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what permissions or limitations apply, or what the audit returns beyond a general reference to Exhibit P.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble. It is dense with several clauses and legal citations, but each clause contributes to scope or expected findings.

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 adequate for tool selection and states the audit scope and legal issues, but with no annotations and no output schema it does not fully describe operational constraints, permissions, or the structure of returned audit findings.

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%, so the schema already documents parcel_id, address, jurisdiction, county, format, and assessed_improvement_value. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and mainly restates the permit-audit context.

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, "Audit," and a precise resource, municipal building/renovation/demolition permit records, with named cities and concrete audit targets. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling audit_* tools focused on tax relief, storm swaths, blight, and other parcel issues.

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?

The description gives a clear use case: identify premature lien-date additions, demolished structures still on CAMA rolls, and maintenance protections under T.C.A. § 67-5-601/603. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name a preferred alternative among the many other audit_* siblings, so usage guidance is clear but incomplete.

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