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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add operational context — which it does: result ordering ('largest first'), AND filter semantics, substring matching behavior for pemegang/provinsi/kabupaten, and the contents of each result. It stops short of discussing rate limits or paging behavior beyond the total count, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb/resource and ordering before the dense parameter glossary. It is a single long paragraph, but each clause earns its place by disambiguating an enum or match rule; it could be marginally more scannable but wastes little.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of documenting returns and does so fully — enumerating id, holder, group, izin, tahap, komoditas, dates, location, luas, bbox, and the total count. Combined with the filter semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description meaningfully enriches every parameter: it expands enum values (KK=contract of work, PKP2B=coal contract, WIUP=unlicensed area; tahap stages glossed), gives bilingual commodity examples, and explains that pemegang is stored without the legal form. This is genuine meaning beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search ESDM mining licences') plus ordering scope ('largest first'), and clearly distinguishes itself from Mining_get for full records. An agent can immediately tell what this tool returns versus its sibling.

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?

Explicitly states the AND-combination rule and the constraint 'pass at least one' filter, and names the alternative ('Use Mining_get with an id for the full record and boundary'). The condition that selects the sibling is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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