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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful return-value context that monetary fields come back in both cents and dollars, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, count approximation, or auth beyond what the schema already documents.

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 purpose, then requirements, then a return-value caveat, then a worked example — a sensible order with little waste. The example largely duplicates the schema's examples array, which is the only redundancy.

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?

For a 13-parameter search tool with no output schema but full schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It stays silent on pagination and filtering options, but the schema carries those adequately.

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 all 13 parameters including formats, ranges, and defaults. The description only restates the geo_id variants and date format, adding an example call rather than new meaning; baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource with scope: "Search US building permits scoped to a location." The permits resource is cleanly distinct from the sibling shovels_address_search and shovels_contractors_search, so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the two required inputs (geo_id + permit_from/permit_to) and their accepted formats, and points to shovels_address_search as the upstream source for a geo_id, which establishes the call order. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions, which keeps it below a 5.

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