intake_project_scope

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 discloses a high-level multi-step workflow and says it returns a structured intake summary, but it does not explain side effects, whether the draft permit is persisted, permission requirements, or whether the tool is limited to Arizona projects.

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 the tool identity and purpose, then organized into Args and Returns sections. It is somewhat long, but the length is justified by the multi-step domain and the need to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to fully explain return values, and it does provide the parameter details missing from the schema. However, for a complex intake tool with no annotations, it omits important context such as geographic limitations, persistence/side effects, and how it should be sequenced with sibling permit tools.

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%, but the description's Args section compensates by documenting all four parameters with examples and meaning: a plain-language SOW, a physical jobsite address, valuation in USD, and an optional project name. It does not add validation constraints, but the parameter semantics are substantially clarified beyond 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?

The description states a specific multi-step verb and resource: it parses contractor SOWs, determines AHJ jurisdiction, identifies trade sub-permits, verifies Arizona PE stamping thresholds, and scaffolds a draft permit. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_permit_requirements or check_permit_readiness.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the intake-oriented purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the sibling tools. An agent can infer this is an initial intake/scaffolding step, but the description does not state when not to use it or how it relates to the other permit tools.

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