reunion_search_residential_permits

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses data source (Sitadel), sorting (by authorization date descending), and return fields comprehensively. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, mention rate limits, or discuss pagination beyond the `limit` parameter. It is adequate but not fully exhaustive.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then detailed output fields, sorting, use cases, and sibling differentiation. It is concise yet comprehensive, with every sentence adding value.

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 fully compensates by listing all return fields, their format, and sorting. It covers input parameters implicitly, and the tool's use cases and alternative are clearly stated. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'filters out small projects' for `min_dwellings`) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 searches residential permit applications for dwellings in La Réunion using the Sitadel database. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `reunion_search_building_permits` by explicitly mentioning that for non-residential permits, that alternative tool should be used.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('housing-supply analysis, market intelligence, developer tracking') and when not to ('For non-residential permits use reunion_search_building_permits'), offering a clear alternative.

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