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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it searches only 'supported' registries and clarifies that results are registry records, not a legal title opinion or survey. This sets correct expectations about data authority and scope.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool searches and by what keys; the second guides usage; the third adds an important legal caveat. The most identifying information is 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 rich schema, full parameter descriptions, enums, annotations, and an output schema, this description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential about the tool's purpose, scope, or limitations is missing.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds a high-level mapping of the query types to the actual search criteria, which is useful, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema's property descriptions already provide for parameter invocation.

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 states a specific action ('Search'), a concrete resource ('supported official mineral-claim registries'), and the exact search dimensions (holder/company, claim number, claim name, or bounding box). It also differentiates the tool from its siblings by emphasizing registry-record lookups rather than mapping or capability operations.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: answer factual questions about claim records or identify ground to be mapped. It does not explicitly mention the sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use them, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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