compare_by_meter_size

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the premium pricing model (pay per call or prepaid key) which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits or authentication requirements beyond the premium note.

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 a single paragraph that is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, from the main purpose to the motivational context, parameter usage, constraint, and premium info. It is efficient without being sparse.

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 no output schema, the description explains the output concept (costs and ratios for each meter size) but does not detail the exact structure of the return value. It is mostly complete for a simple query tool with 3 parameters, but adding explicit output fields would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the default value for 'category' ('water+sewer') and clarifies the mutual exclusivity of 'jurisdiction' and 'address'. This adds some value but does not significantly expand beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get one jurisdiction's water/sewer development cost across EVERY meter size it publishes (5/8" → 12"), each with its ratio to the 5/8" residential base.' It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'compare_jurisdictions' by focusing on a per-jurisdiction meter size analysis.

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 provides explicit usage context: it explains when to use the tool ('size the right meter cost up front') and includes a constraint ('Only works for jurisdictions that publish a per-meter schedule'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it directly to alternative tools from the sibling list.

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