building_permit_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool returns permit details (type, value, status, dates) and that coverage spans multiple Canadian cities, but it does not mention read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. This is acceptable for a low-risk search but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 terse sentences front-load the purpose and follow with output contents. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Combined with the input schema (required params, defaults) and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for its core use case. It lacks guidance on how to choose between this and building_permit_recent, but that does not block 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must illuminate the parameters. It clarifies that q can contain an address, contractor, applicant, or permit number and that city is one of 13+ Canadian cities, but it says nothing about limit or permit_type. This adds partial value beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('building permits'), the search dimensions (address, contractor, applicant, permit number), and scope ('13+ Canadian cities'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like building_permit_recent, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 search criteria provide a clear context: use this when you need to find permits by address, contractor, applicant, or permit number. There are no exclusions or mention of alternatives such as building_permit_recent for browsing recent permits, so the guidance is context-level rather than explicit.

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