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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description goes beyond this by disclosing important behavioral semantics: failure classifications differentiate 'missing' from 'blocked', and explicitly warns that 'blocked' is NOT evidence the source is gone. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then lists return categories, clarifies failure semantics, and ends with practical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description supplies the missing judgment context: what freshness signals mean, failure classification semantics, and when to reach for this tool. No critical information appears absent.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameter semantics, including the optional jurisdiction filter and the limit with its default. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond referring to jurisdictions, so the baseline of 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 identifies the resource (permit catalog), the action (returns source-freshness telemetry), and the specific data returned: last-verified dates, per-jurisdiction health rollup, and snapshot pipeline results. This distinguishes it from sibling permit-related tools like fee estimation or rule details.

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 names concrete use cases: answering 'how current is this fee/timeline?' and surfacing confidence in a permit answer. It does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, but the intended usage context is clear.

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