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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real value beyond them: sort order ('newest first'), the differing date basis per city (filing vs issue), and that each result includes an Umarelli link. It also implicitly scopes results to new-building and major-renovation permits only, a useful filtering disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource, geography, ordering, and output shape are all packed in without redundancy.

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 correctly sketches the return shape (permit with Umarelli link) and ordering, but leaves the two optional parameters' meaning and effect unexplained. For a three-param tool with low schema coverage that is an incomplete picture.

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 only 33% — `limit` and `radius_meters` have no descriptions, only bounds and defaults. The description mentions 'near' but never explains the radius parameter, its units, default, or the limit/pagination behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List new-building and major-renovation permits'), plus the geography (NYC/Jersey City) and the scoping qualifier ('near a street address'). An agent can distinguish this from the generic `fetch` and `search` siblings without opening any schema.

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 when the tool applies (looking up recent permits around an address) but offers no explicit when-not conditions or routing against the `fetch`/`search` siblings. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement alone.

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