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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the exact place_id format ({state_fips}-{county_fips}), the covered span (2015-2025), the structure-type breakdown, and a provenance/PII note. It doesn't cover pagination or result-count behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Front-loads the action (search the survey by county/state name) and then the return value, with no filler sentences. The content-list clause is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what data the place_id unlocks.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by specifying the place_id format and downstream data. Combined with full schema coverage for inputs and rich annotations, an agent has enough to call and chain it, though pagination/limit behavior is left to the schema.

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 both q and limit are already documented in the schema, making the baseline a 3. The description confirms q accepts county/state names and clarifies the output key format, adding marginal value but no syntax or matching-behavior details beyond the schema.

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 (Search) plus resource (Census Building Permits Survey) and scope (by county/state name). No sibling covers building permits, so the resource alone differentiates it, and the description's detail on content makes the tool's domain unmistakable.

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?

Implies a two-step workflow by stating it returns a place_id 'to pull a county's residential-construction permit history', giving clear context for when to reach for it. It stops short of naming the follow-up tool or stating when not to use it, so no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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