Get permit query schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the exact return content and adds a useful data-quality caveat that date/value fields are frequently null depending on permit source. It does not discuss error handling or permissions, but for a metadata-read operation this is acceptable.

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 sentences with no redundancy: the first leads with the action and return contents, the second supplies a relevant caveat. Every sentence 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 single-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the input, the return contents, and a key behavioral caveat. The sibling list includes listPublishedCounties, but omitting that as a prerequisite is a minor gap.

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?

The only parameter, county, is already fully documented in the schema with minLength, case-insensitivity, and an example. The description reaffirms that county selects the permits query table but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and precisely specifies the resource: the 'permits' query table's column list, DuckDB types, and one-line descriptions, scoped by county. It also states the intended use ('so queryPermits can be written without guessing'), which distinguishes it from sibling schema tools like getPropertyQuerySchema and getPlaceQuerySchema.

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?

It explicitly ties the tool to queryPermits, signaling the agent to call this before writing permit queries. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the 'for a county' scoping and queryPermits reference provide clear usage context.

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