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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns 'confidence + a single clarifyingQuestion when the parse is ambiguous' and is 'Backed by Gemini 2.5 Pro with a constrained JSON schema.' This tells the agent about potential ambiguity handling and the underlying model's constraints, beyond the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output behavior, usage directive, and backend note. Information is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the usage guidance appears before the model backing detail. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 there is an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately focuses on motivating usage and behavioral nuances. It covers the core inputs implicitly and explicitly names the output fields and ambiguous-fallback behavior. Minor gap: it does not mention how jurisdictionSlug/zoningCode influence parsing, but the schema descriptions already cover their semantics.

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%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., cityName, zoningCode, description, jurisdictionSlug). The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does clarify the overall purpose and output fields but not the parameters themselves.

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+resource: 'Parse a homeowner's natural-language project description into structured permit-relevant fields.' It then enumerates the exact output fields, disambiguating it from sibling tools like check_permit_requirements and estimate_permit_fee. It clearly identifies the input type (free text from homeowner) and the parsing function.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before calling check_permit_requirements / estimate_permit_fee when you only have free text from the homeowner.' This names the downstream tools and the condition for use. It does not enumerate when not to use it or compare with other parsing-like tools, but the directive is clear and actionable.

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