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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that applicant/contractor personal data is stripped, that each result carries license and attribution, and that cost is 1 credit per record with a 1-credit minimum per search. It omits pagination behavior (limit/offset) and any auth or rate-limit context, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Roughly four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and required parameter, with no filler. The clauses are dense and slightly list-like, but every sentence (including the privacy and cost statements) carries information the agent needs.

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 9-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: required/optional filters, date formats, privacy handling, result contents, and cost. What remains missing is pagination semantics and confirmation that this is a non-mutating read, but neither is fatal.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it marks 'state' as required, notes 'address' is a prefix match, and specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format for issued_after/issued_before. Only limit and offset go undocumented, though those are self-evident pagination parameters.

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 a generic search tool. It never names or contrasts with the closest sibling, query_parcels, so an agent must infer the resource distinction on its own.

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 implies the usage context by listing the filter set and stating that 'state' is required, so the agent can infer a filtered lookup over permit records. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisite/authentication guidance despite the credit-based cost.

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