Get full permit review

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the response contents, including types of data returned and the presence of a verdict and verification list, going beyond annotation coverage.

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?

One dense, information-rich sentence that lists all key outputs without waste. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a colon to introduce specifics, making it easy to parse.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description thoroughly conveys what the caller will receive. It covers the complete review and even highlights the overall verdict and verification recommendations, which are likely the most important outputs.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for permit_id, including an example and note about street names. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'complete review for one permit case', then enumerates the specific contents (utility lines, owners, distances, grades, verdict, verification needs). This is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_permits (searching) and portfolio_summary (aggregation).

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 implies usage for a single permit's detailed review but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. It lacks direct comparison to siblings or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context from scope.

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