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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds critical behavioral details: that permits are only held after a decision, outcomes are not included, notifications only if accepted, pending cases are not held, and the TWO-STATE behavior (empty result ≠ no record). This is far beyond baseline and very helpful. No contradiction.

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 lengthy but each sentence adds value: data source, data items, usage context, matching limitation, data completeness, TWO-STATE. It is structured in paragraphs and front-loaded with the essential purpose. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 that the tool has only one parameter, is a read-only query, and has no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what is returned, what is not, when to use, and common pitfalls. It is fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already explains transaction_id well. The description reinforces that it's from a search result but doesn't add much beyond that. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('building-permit history for one transaction's parcels'), and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like get_transaction_planning (which likely deals with planning permissions) and get_transaction_farmland (which is about farmland). It also names the registry and data coverage since 2016. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 tells when to use it: 'Use it after a search to screen what has been built or approved on the transaction's land.' It also notes that it should be used alongside a search result, implying that a transaction_id must come from prior search. The description also warns about the matching limitation (current identifier, so splits/merges break the link). This is strong guidance.

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