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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by clarifying that the call triggers no terrain computation — something an agent could otherwise misread as an expensive operation — and it discloses that 'access state' is returned, hinting at permission gating.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned content and followed by the one behavioral caveat that matters. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 return-value explanation is unnecessary, and with zero parameters the surface is small. The description covers purpose, content and side-effect profile adequately, though 'access state' remains undefined and no guidance on acting on the metadata is given.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space describing inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact payload: source resolution, units, coverage, limits and access state. It also implicitly separates itself from get_parcel_terrain by stating it 'does not initiate a terrain analysis', though it never names that sibling outright.

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 phrasing 'discovery tool' and 'does not initiate a terrain analysis' hints that this is a prerequisite/inspection call, which is useful positioning. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus get_parcel_terrain, nor does it state any prerequisites or ordering.

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