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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail not in annotations: output fidelity varies by jurisdiction (Seattle 'full', others 'wa-baseline-stub', unverified 'no-spec'). This context helps an agent set expectations and avoid misinterpreting results.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: it states the core function, specifies when to use it (with sibling comparison), and discloses output fidelity across jurisdictions. Information is front-loaded and there is zero redundancy or filler.

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 6-parameter tool, presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It tells what the tool returns, when to use it, and the jurisdiction variability. Minor omissions like pagination or error handling are acceptable because output schema exists and annotations cover safety. It does not duplicate schema details.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter (address, scope, envelopeChange, etc.) is fully documented. The tool description does not add extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, hitting the baseline of 3 as expected when schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('structured submittal-item set for a specific parcel + permit scope'), and explicitly contrasts it with check_permit_requirements, distinguishing its purpose. It also mentions the pipeline and output nature, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 says 'Use this when you need the per-item checklist ... not just the rule-level summary that check_permit_requirements returns,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. It also clarifies jurisdiction-specific output behavior, giving concrete guidance on expected results.

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