readypermit-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying the types of ADUs considered (backyard cottage, garage conversion, or addition), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or what 'eligible' entails (e.g., regulatory compliance).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does and the scope of ADUs, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete enough for basic use. It specifies the tool's purpose and ADU types, but lacks details on output format or eligibility criteria, which could be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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%, with the parameter 'address' fully documented as 'Full U.S. property address'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 specific verb ('Check if a property is eligible') and resource ('ADU - backyard cottage, garage conversion, or addition'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_flood_risk' or 'what_can_i_build' by focusing on ADU eligibility rather than general property analysis or flood risk assessment.

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 implies usage for checking ADU eligibility, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_property' or 'what_can_i_build'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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