readypermit-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the data sources (FEMA, EPA, wildfire zones) and scope (U.S. property), which are useful contextual details beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format, keeping it at a baseline level with annotations covering safety.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. Every part of the description earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation) and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and its scope but could improve by mentioning output details or limitations. With annotations handling safety, it's mostly adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying it's for a U.S. property, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema carries the burden, and no extra semantic value is provided.

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 ('check', 'covers') and resources ('FEMA flood zone status', 'environmental risk', 'U.S. property'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'analyze_property' or 'check_adu_eligibility' by focusing specifically on flood and environmental risk assessment rather than general analysis or eligibility checks.

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 U.S. property risk assessment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_property' or 'compare_parcels'. It provides context (e.g., 'for a U.S. property') but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or named alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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