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 useful context by specifying the scope of project types covered (ADUs, expansions, etc.), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data sources, or response format. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 core purpose and lists covered project types without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it appropriately sized 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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and good annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and scope well, but it could improve by hinting at output format or data sources. Without an output schema, some gaps remain, but it's adequate for a read-only query tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'project_type' and 'any' in its coverage list, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is correct 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 a specific verb ('Answer') and resource ('What can I build on this property?'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on permitted uses and project types rather than eligibility analysis, risk assessment, or comparisons.

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 determining buildable options on a property, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_adu_eligibility' or 'analyze_property'. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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