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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing per-jurisdiction output fidelity: Seattle returns 'full', nine verified cities return 'wa-baseline-stub' until backfill, and unverified jurisdictions return no-spec. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose, usage context, and output-fidelity caveat each earn their place. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete for selecting and calling the tool. It covers the tool's purpose, the distinguishing sibling, and the critical jurisdiction-dependent output behavior. It also appropriately does not re-explain return values since an output schema is present.

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% and every parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional per-parameter semantics; it mentions output fields like triggers and source citations, which relate to the return payload rather than the input schema.

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: 'Resolve the structured submittal-item set for a specific parcel + permit scope.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns (per-item checklist with triggers, source citations, filler actor, gap-resolution path) and explicitly distinguishes itself from check_permit_requirements, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use when you need the per-item checklist, not the rule-level summary from check_permit_requirements. This names the alternative and the selection condition, leaving no ambiguity about tool choice.

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