get_permit_verdict

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds critical non-annotation behavior: it discloses the $2.00 USDC cost and states that payment happens automatically from the configured wallet. It also notes the tool provides nothing if no permit activity exists. No contradiction with 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 three sentences of dense, high-value information: cost, what it does, the pre-check workflow, and automatic payment. No filler or redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the PAID warning.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes what the tool returns (normalized history, activity signals, verdict with cited records). It covers cost, preconditions, and workflow. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit structure for the 'verdict' output, but that does not prevent correct usage.

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% for both parameters, with clear examples (e.g., '760 14th St' and 'san_francisco') and a reference to list_jurisdictions. The description adds little beyond schema, such as reinforcing 'covered city,' but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool provides 'address-level building-permit intelligence' with 'normalized permit history, activity signals, and a decision-ready verdict with cited public records.' It differentiates from the sibling free tool check_permit_activity by being paid and adding a verdict, and the title reinforces the $2.00 cost.

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?

Explicitly directs the user to 'Run the free check_permit_activity first — if there is no activity, this call has nothing to add.' This provides a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use condition, and the use of 'covered city' and jurisdiction slug gives contextual prerequisites.

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