get_fee_breakdown

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns a detailed fee breakdown grouped by category, with calculation basis, schedule vs. estimate indication, per-meter-size schedule, source URL, and effective date. It also mentions the premium payment method.

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 somewhat verbose but packed with necessary details. It lacks headings or bullet points but is still readable and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description comprehensively explains what is returned. Given the complexity of the data and the existence of siblings, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and output.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema by clarifying that jurisdiction or address are mutually exclusive, explaining the dev_type default, and detailing the rich output structure. This goes beyond a simple rephrasing.

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 the FEE-BY-FEE breakdown behind a jurisdiction's development cost.' It specifies the exact output components (each fee, calculation basis, grouped categories, source URL, effective date) and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the per-fee detail and defensibility.

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 explains when to use the tool: by providing a jurisdiction or address, and optionally a dev_type. It defaults to single_family. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the detailed output naturally guides appropriate use.

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