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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the explicit gating conditions (retained source, rights clearance, manifest, inventory, hash, artifact evidence) and the negative guarantees about email capture and synthetic geometry. It stops short of saying what state the response takes once all conditions are satisfied, but this is well above annotation baseline.

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 tight sentences with the availability check front-loaded before the gating conditions. The middle condition list is dense but each item carries meaning; no filler or restatement of the name.

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 must carry the return-shape burden. It explains the 'unavailable' outcome clearly but never says what a successful response contains (a bundle? artifact links? manifest only?), and the county/state input expectations go unaddressed, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent preparing the call.

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 only 33% — the county and state parameters have no schema descriptions at all, and the description does not compensate with format guidance (e.g., two-letter state code, county name normalization). The only parameter it clarifies is the optional email, and that clarification is oddly duplicated from the schema field description.

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 ('Check verified county sample availability'), which is concrete enough to act on. However, the name promises a 'download_sample_bundle' while the description only describes an availability check, and it never names siblings like gisdb_request_sample or gisdb_redeem_download to disambiguate within a large GIS family.

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 clause 'No email, checkout or synthetic geometry is produced' implicitly draws a boundary against checkout-style siblings, so an agent can infer this is a pre-check step. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statement, and no named alternative for the case where availability is confirmed.

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