building_permit_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's lack of behavioral details is acceptable. However, the 'DEMO' flag is not explained, and no additional behavioral context (e.g., response format) is provided beyond the annotation.

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 very short (one sentence plus 'DEMO'), which is concise but lacks structure. It is not verbose, but the brevity leaves out essential information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify what the guide returns. Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required), the description is incomplete for an agent to understand its full capability.

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 description does not mention the parameters 'county' or 'project_type', despite the schema having 0% description coverage. With no param documentation in the description, the agent receives no added meaning beyond the schema's raw structure.

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 identifies the tool as a guide for building plan approval and permits in Kenya counties, which differentiates it from sibling tools like affordable_housing_guide or rental_market_guide. However, the term 'DEMO' adds a slight ambiguity about its completeness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools cover related topics, but no differentiation is mentioned.

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