get_water_sewer_detail

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully compensates by disclosing it's a premium pay-per-call tool, payment methods, and the importance of meter size. It also mentions that it returns a full table where available. No contradictions.

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 concise but packed with useful information. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds details. Could be broken into shorter sentences for easier reading, but no waste.

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 adequately explains what is returned (full per-meter-size table broken down by fee type). It covers the key aspects, though the exact format is not specified.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the significance of meter size and the default behavior, going beyond the schema's basic field 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 it gets water & sewer development cost broken down by meter size with specific fee types (impact/capacity vs physical tap/connection). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on detailed per-meter-size tables and actual meter cost.

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 explains when to use (to get actual meter cost for a project) and provides context on default meter size and premium payment. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough.

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