justhandled_chicago_demolition_permit_change_packet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost and 'bounded' nature, implying a read-only query, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or failure/refund behavior. It adds some context but leaves important behavioral aspects unstated.

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, front-loaded with the core action and cost. No redundant words or filler; every word adds value.

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 tool with no output schema and nested parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not describe the return format (e.g., a list of changes) or explain 'records_generated_at'. While the cost and comparison intent are helpful, the description fails to provide enough context for correct 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 50%, leaving 'previous' and 'records_generated_at' undocumented. The description's 'optional prior snapshot' clarifies 'previous', but 'records_generated_at' remains unexplained. The 'records' param is covered by the schema, so the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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 tool queries a Chicago demolition-permit adapter and compares current matches with an optional prior snapshot. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like justhandled_chicago_contract_change_packet by narrowing to demolition permits.

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 provides clear context by mentioning the optional prior snapshot for comparison and the $0.25 cost, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over other change-packet tools or any exclusions. No direct alternatives are cited, but the purpose is enough to infer usage.

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