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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that passing `address` enriches each result with `submittals_v2` from the unified resolver. It does not repeat the schema's `onlyAuthoritative` caveats, but those are captured in the parameter schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: what it returns, what filters exist, when to use it, and a key output-shaping parameter. There is no filler or 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?

With an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and safety annotations in place, the description covers the main selection and invocation needs well. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit sibling guidance, but the use cases and filter semantics are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that `address` changes the output shape (adds per-rule `submittals_v2`) and by naming the two primary filter modes (jurisdiction slug and keyword). This goes slightly beyond the schema's property-level documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Enumerate permit rules') and enumerates the detail dimensions (timeline, fee model, inspection sequence, submittals, contractor specialties). It also includes concrete use cases that distinguish it from nearby sibling tools like check_permit_requirements or 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?

It gives explicit intended queries ('what does a Seattle ADU permit require?') and a clear use case for listing all rules for a jurisdiction. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as check_permit_requirements or resolve_permit_submittals, leaving some routing to agent inference.

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