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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns timeline, fee notes, inspection sequence, required submittals, and an official source URL, prefers jurisdiction-verified rules, and discloses the Seattle SDCI fidelity vs wa-baseline-stub distinction. This gives the agent a reliable picture of what the call will produce.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the core action, then gives return contents, usage examples, address behavior, and fidelity caveats. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information, and no content is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 tool's 8 optional parameters, rich output schema, and sibling ecosystem, the description covers return contents, jurisdiction routing, address-triggered submittals, fidelity caveats, and concrete invocation examples. Nothing essential for selecting or calling this tool correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that `address` triggers `submittals_v2` from the unified resolver and overrides `location` for jurisdiction routing — information not fully present in the schema. It does not need to repeat each parameter since the schema already documents them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a residential construction project... requires a permit.' It also scopes the geographic coverage (King/Pierce/Snohomish counties) and gives concrete example queries that make the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from broader siblings like answer_permit_question.

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 provides explicit use examples: 'Use for "Do I need a permit to build a deck in Seattle?"...' This gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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