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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds the scope of information returned but doesn't mention any specific behavioral aspects like rate limits or caching, which is acceptable given the rich annotations.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence enumerates the returned information, and the second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and precise.

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 zero parameters and the output schema exists, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what to expect and when to use it. The output schema will define the exact structure of the capabilities.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description fully describes the output categories, compensating for the absence of parameters. This is above baseline 4.

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 it returns the map types, mineral-registry jurisdictions, context overlays, search modes, and styles supported by ExplorationMaps. This is specific and distinct from siblings, as it is about capabilities, not previewing a map or searching claims.

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 says to use this when deciding whether ExplorationMaps can fulfill a mapping request or when a jurisdiction is unclear, providing clear context for when to call it.

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