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

Adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: public unauthenticated access and a 60 requests/min per IP rate limit, plus explicit zero state mutation. Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, and the description does not add further detail such as error behavior or numeric precision, so it stops 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and easy to scan, but the 'When to use' sentence is boilerplate that repeats the tool name, and the Returns section is generic filler rather than specifics for this fee calculator.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description accounts for the return shape (status, matched records or computed metrics, action URLs), plus safety, auth, and rate-limit context. For a read-only 3-parameter lookup, that covers what an agent needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% and both enums are documented in the schema with examples (H4 dwelling house, G1 offices), so the baseline applies. The description only restates the three required parameter names without adding format, unit, or constraint meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('estimates municipal building plan scrutiny fees in ZAR') plus concrete inputs (floor area, municipality, SANS 10400 classification) and geography. It is clearly distinguishable from check_zoning_requirements and submit_compliance_inquiry.

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 names both siblings and says not to use this tool when another fits better, which is useful routing. But the positive condition is circular ('call this tool when you specifically need to execute estimate_scrutiny_fee'), giving no real scenario-level criterion for choosing it.

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