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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds materially: PII stripping, per-source attribution requirements, and cost of 1 credit per record with a 1-credit minimum per search. Pagination behavior via limit/offset is not described.

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 compact sentences, all front-loaded with the search semantics first, then filters, then privacy, then cost. Nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (license and attribution per source). The only meaningful gap is pagination guidance for limit/offset, which the schema lists but the description never explains.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it names the required 'state', the optional filters, that 'address' is prefix-matched, and the YYYY-MM-DD date format. Only 'limit' and 'offset' are left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search building permits') plus the source constraint ('cleared open-data sources'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling query_parcels.

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 states the required and optional filters and the credit cost, implying usage, but never says when to prefer it over query_parcels or when a search is not appropriate.

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