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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds useful context such as per-endpoint pricing (e.g., '$0.25', 'premium', 'lite tier') and notes that some endpoints are 'free' (satellite-availability). It also mentions 'Deterministic facts-only' for exploration-snapshot, indicating a behavior. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response formats, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 structured with a bullet list of endpoints, which improves scannability, but it is verbose and repeats information already in the schema's 'action' enum. The opening sentence is truncated ('critical mi...'), indicating a formatting or completeness issue. The list is long (11 items) but each line is concise. Overall, it is moderately organized but not optimally concise or front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It provides a high-level overview and endpoint list but fails to explain how to combine parameters for each action (e.g., whether 'lat/lon' vs 'region' vs 'deposit' are needed for specific endpoints). It also does not describe the response structure or any per-endpoint requirements, making it difficult for an agent to construct a valid request beyond setting 'action'.

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%, so all 12 parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add further parameter-level semantics; it only lists endpoint names and prices, which are already present in the 'action' enum. It does not explain which optional parameters are relevant for each endpoint (e.g., that 'basin' is for oil-gas-basin). Thus, it neither enhances nor harms parameter understanding, warranting the baseline 3.

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 identifies the tool as providing 'Global mineral and resource exploration intelligence' and enumerates 11 endpoints with one-line descriptions (e.g., 'Mineral prospectivity assessment', 'Oil & gas basin analysis'). This distinguishes it from sibling 'pulse' tools that target other domains. However, it lacks a direct verb phrase summarizing the overall action, instead relying on endpoint descriptions to convey purpose.

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 establishes clear context for when to use the tool (mineral/resource exploration) and provides an endpoint list with brief descriptions, allowing an agent to select an appropriate action. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the domain-specific coverage ('Coverage: Global') and endpoint options imply the intended use cases. No direct comparison to siblings is made, but the endpoint list serves as a form of usage guidance.

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