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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating what the tool returns and its scoping to a neighborhood/city. It does not disclose caveats like data freshness or empty-result behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 no filler: the first states the action, the second describes the returned data, and the third gives practical usage examples. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter lookup with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the nature of the results, and sample user questions it answers. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples ('Ballard', 'Capitol Hill', 'Bellevue', 'Queen Anne'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the same semantics but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the high-coverage 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'See what remodeling projects Kolmo Construction has completed in a specific Seattle neighborhood or city.' It further clarifies the output ('project counts by category, example projects, and typical project descriptions'), making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like get_neighbor_permit_activity or list_projects.

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 concrete use-case examples: 'Has Kolmo worked in Ballard?' and 'What has Kolmo done in Capitol Hill?' This effectively communicates when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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