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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral guarantee: it never fabricates fees or thresholds and falls back to 'I don't have that on file.' It also explains the grounding sources and the cited-answer format, all of which are useful and non-obvious behaviors.

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 sentences with no filler: the first sentence establishes purpose and behavior, the second adds the honesty constraint and usage examples. The critical context is front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to correct invocation.

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?

Given the readOnly annotations, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, how it behaves when data is missing, and what kinds of questions are appropriate. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that questions should be natural language and providing concrete examples for both the address and question inputs, reinforcing how the parameters should be phrased.

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 names a specific verb and resource: answering grounded permit questions for a specific Seattle-area address. It also details what the tool does internally (parcel lookup, jurisdiction rules, municipal code, neighbor activity) and clearly differentiates itself from siblings like check_permit_requirements or estimate_permit_fee by emphasizing cited natural-language answers.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for natural-language permit questions, and gives two concrete example prompts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route ordinary Q&A here rather than to fee-estimation or requirement-checking siblings.

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