estimate_permit_fees_and_sla

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool estimates and returns an itemized breakdown, but it does not state whether it is read-only, deterministic, dependent on real-time data, subject to rate limits, or requiring authentication. Accuracy disclaimers and coverage limitations are also 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?

The description is front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. The leading phrase restates the tool name and is slightly redundant, but overall the content is tight and easy to scan. No unnecessary filler is present.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the three required inputs with examples and scope, and it names the supported cities. It lacks caveats about calculation accuracy or permit-type coverage, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so reasonably well by explaining each parameter: jurisdiction with city examples, permit_type with trade examples, and valuation with its unit (USD). It does not enumerate all allowed values, but it provides clear semantic meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: estimates municipal permit fees, plan check surcharges, technology fees, and review turnaround timelines. It also names the supported jurisdictions (Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa), which helps scope it. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the purpose is clear enough to distinguish it from search and readiness tools.

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 explains what the tool does but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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