US STR Permit Registry

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it 'Starts the bound Apify Actor with the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, and returns at most 1,000 source-linked rows without modifying government records.' This covers side effects, cost, timeout, row limit, and non-destructiveness. It does not contradict the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case and the sibling alternative, then packing operational constraints (token, usage, timeout, row cap, non-modification) into a single dense sentence. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of conveying the broad result shape ('address, owner, permit-ID, or jurisdiction research' and 'source-linked rows') and key limits. It could be more explicit about the fields returned per row or error/timeout behavior, but it is complete enough for selection and 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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail, including enum options for cities, the status filter, snapshot behavior, max records per city, and jurisdiction resolution. The tool description adds no further parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Use for address, owner, permit-ID, or jurisdiction research across supported US short-term-rental permit sources.' It clearly states the domain and scope, and it names the closest sibling (fl-dbpr-vacation-rentals) as the alternative, which lets an agent distinguish the tool without opening schemas.

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 when to use this tool and when not to: 'Use for address, owner, permit-ID, or jurisdiction research' and 'For Florida statewide DBPR lodging licenses, use fl-dbpr-vacation-rentals instead.' This direct exclusion of the most likely confusable sibling is strong usage guidance.

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