check_permit_readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what gets analyzed (unverified/expired documents, open authority comments) and the risk categories, but never says whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens if the permit does not exist — gaps that matter given annotations are absent.

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?

Well front-loaded: the gate metaphor and scope appear before the Args/Returns boilerplate. The header line ('Blocker Breakdown Gate') is mildly redundant, but overall every sentence adds information about scope or output.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't spell out return values, and it still summarizes them (score, risk tier, blocker breakdown, actions). For a one-parameter read/analysis tool this is close to complete; only the safety/mutation profile and error behavior are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% for a single required string, so the description is the only source of meaning. It labels it a 'Permit identifier' and supplies a concrete example format ('P-1042'), which goes beyond the bare 'Permit Id' string property in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (audits readiness), a specific resource (a single permit), and enumerates the concrete outputs (0–100 score, risk tier, blockers, Go/No-Go verdict). An agent can distinguish this from search_permit_requirements or estimate_permit_fees_and_sla purely from the description.

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 phrase 'pre-filing audit' and 'Pre-Submission Readiness Audit' imply the use context (before submitting a permit) but never state exclusions, prerequisites, or which sibling to use instead. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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