building_permit_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does indicate the core behavior: returning recently issued permits, implying recency-based ordering and city scoping. However, it does not clarify what 'recent' means, how limit interacts with results, or whether there is pagination, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the use case is stated in a single efficient phrase. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter, single-required-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operation and purpose. However, it omits limit semantics, does not differentiate from building_permit_search beyond 'recent,' and lacks any guidance about valid city values. These are notable but not critical gaps for a straightforward list 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 0%, so the description needs to compensate by explaining both parameters. It loosely ties 'city' to the 'for a city' scope, but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, its default of 20, or its effect on the returned list. This leaves a meaningful semantic gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the most recently issued building permits for a city.' The 'recent' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling building_permit_search, making its unique role immediately clear without needing to inspect the schema.

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 phrase 'Useful for monitoring new construction activity' gives a clear intended-use context. However, it does not explicitly mention building_permit_search as an alternative or state when this tool should not be used, leaving some routing nuance to the agent.

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