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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the 5-result free preview cap and the investor feed's focus on stalled/abandoned permits with 'often motivated owners'. No contradiction.

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 compact sentences, with the critical free preview limitation front-loaded. The external pricing link is brief and not distracting. Every phrase earns its place.

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 effectively covers availability, scope, filtering, and feed selection. It lacks return-structure details, but with no output schema this is acceptable. The pricing link provides additional human-relevant context without bloating the description.

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 descriptions already cover all five parameters (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'declared budget' and the feed='investor' hint adds slight context but doesn't meaningfully exceed the schema's own explanations.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'recently permitted construction projects in a covered city, filtered by declared budget'. The verb 'find' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes itself from the investor feed variant.

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 recommends using feed='investor' for expired/abandoned permits and notes the free preview limitation. It doesn't contrast with sibling tools like check_permit_activity or get_permit_verdict, but the within-tool alternative is clear and actionable.

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