readypermit-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the analysis scope (zoning, buildability, constraints), the instant nature of results, and that it returns a link to a full report. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that front-load the core functionality and follow with return details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good completeness. It covers purpose, scope, and return format. The main gap is no output schema, but the description adequately describes what's returned (zoning designation, constraints, report link).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, though it reinforces the U.S. address scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('Get instant zoning analysis, buildability assessment, and development constraints') and resource ('any U.S. property address'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive property analysis rather than specific checks like flood risk or ADU eligibility.

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 clear context ('for any U.S. property address') and implies usage for property development analysis, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_adu_eligibility' or 'what_can_i_build'. It mentions tailoring by persona but doesn't provide exclusion criteria.

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