search_permits

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

With no annotations, the description relies on the verb 'search' and the phrase 'actually been permitted' to imply a read-only, authoritative query. However, it does not disclose output format, pagination behavior, data recency, or access requirements. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and ends with a clear use case. Every sentence contributes meaning with no filler.

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?

For a search tool with fully documented parameters, the description gives sufficient context on purpose, filters, and usage. It lacks an output schema and does not specify return fields, but the core decision-making context is adequately covered.

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 parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the filter options but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search issued building permits') and adds geographic scope (SF Peninsula and adjacent Silicon Valley cities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on leads, inventory, and property intelligence.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to find what construction has actually been permitted at an address or in a city.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the intended context is clear.

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