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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a cost of $0.25 per query and specifies the output scope (completed/planned surveys), which is useful. However, it lacks details on response format, error handling, or any side effects, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 two sentences, efficiently conveying purpose, scope, and cost without redundant wording. Every sentence contributes valuable information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: data source, state filtering, survey types, and cost. It does not detail return structure, but the simplicity of the operation reduces the need for more. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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 the single 'state' parameter, which already documents its meaning and format. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond stating 'by state,' so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 returns USGS Earth MRI focus area data by state, specifically completed and planned geophysical/geochemical surveys. This identifies the resource and the action (returns), though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like geophysics_surveys.

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 implies the tool is used with a state input but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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