check_permit_activity

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, non-destructive nature. The description adds the behavioral trait that the result is a yes/no screen (not a full report) and that it covers 'recent' activity, which helps set expectations. It does not detail output formatting or error handling, but for a simple read operation with strong annotations, this adds sufficient context.

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 brief and front-loaded with 'FREE.' which is extraneous and not pertinent to tool invocation. The remaining text is efficient and directly useful, consisting of a purpose statement and an alternative reference.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the screening nature and directs to get_permit_verdict for more depth. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it, though it leaves the exact response format underspecified.

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 includes descriptions for both parameters (address and jurisdiction) with 100% coverage. The description references 'given address' but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so it doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 checks whether an address has recent permit activity and to what extent, using a yes/no screening format. It explicitly distinguishes this from get_permit_verdict, which provides full history and a decision.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the alternative: use get_permit_verdict when full history and a decision are needed. This is an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use statement.

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