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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the tool is paid ($2.00 USDC via x402), requires a covered city, and returns cited public records. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but the payment and coverage details are meaningful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output components, and the payment detail in the second sentence. No wasted words; every element 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 is reasonably complete for a read-only tool with robust annotations and full parameter schema coverage. It outlines the three output components (history, signals, verdict) and mentions the payment requirement. It lacks details on response structure, but the absence of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by the description's explicit list of result components.

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 explains jurisdiction and address. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. It does reinforce that jurisdiction must be a covered city, but this is already encoded in the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 produces address-level building-permit intelligence, including permit history, activity signals, and a decision-ready verdict. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like check_permit_activity or find_active_projects, relying on the word 'verdict' to imply uniqueness.

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 implies usage: it is for obtaining a verdict about building permits at a specific address in a covered city. It does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., check_permit_activity) or provide exclusions. The payment requirement is mentioned but not framed as a usage decision.

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