Permitting & Moratorium Intel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about data provenance (human-verified), stage-tagging ('Enacted' / 'Proposed' / 'Speculative'), and included attribution fields (source URL, coordinates). It also notes the resource is free and full for every caller, going beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 long but information-dense: it front-loads the core purpose, then lists record contents, stage tagging, examples, an exclusion, and a live rendering URL. Each sentence earns its place, though some promotional phrasing ('FREE and full for every caller', 'no other machine-readable source serves') could be trimmed without losing functional guidance.

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 that the tool has two optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what the records contain, how to filter them, when to use the tool, when not to use it, and where the data is rendered. There is no missing decision-critical information for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the two optional parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning by using class=moratorium and state=MN as examples, and by mapping the class value 'tax' and 'utility_pause' to 'tax changes' and 'utility pauses'. This helps an agent understand how to use the parameters even though the schema already documents them.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it provides 'PERMITTING & MORATORIUM intelligence' with curated jurisdiction records covering moratoriums, zoning restrictions, tax changes, and utility pauses. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling get_tax_incentives, and the scope is specific to restrictions and risk rather than incentives.

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 gives explicit use cases ('is there a moratorium where I want to build', 'which jurisdictions just tightened data-center zoning') and a direct exclusion with a named alternative ('Do NOT use for tax INCENTIVE programs by state (use get_tax_incentives)'). The call examples class=moratorium and state=MN also serve as concrete usage guidance.

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