get_transaction_permits

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this by stating it queries an official registry and lists limitations (parcel identifier dependency, only positive cases). It also discloses cost (4 tokens, refunded when no record) and the two-state behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value (e.g., data source, limitations, cost). A minor reduction could improve conciseness, but it remains efficient and clear.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (kind, building intent, works type, etc.) and behavior (empty results, cost refund). It covers all necessary context for correct invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter (transaction_id) with a schema description that is already clear (UUID from search results). The tool description does not add additional semantics for this parameter beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves building-permit history for one transaction's parcels from an official registry. It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'building-permit history', and the scope 'for one transaction's parcels', distinguishing it from other transaction-specific tools like get_transaction_flood or get_transaction_heritage.

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 says 'Use it after a search to screen what has been built or approved on the transaction's land', indicating when to use. It also warns that matching is by current parcel identifier so splits/merges break the link, and that only positively resolved cases are included, with empty results not confirming absence of planning. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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