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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's real contribution is a gating precondition — evidence requirements must be satisfied before export — but it never says how that condition is met, whether the tool ever succeeds, or what an invocation returns in the blocked state.

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 filler, and the blocking condition comes first. But the phrasing ('every claimed fact and export right has source-bound evidence') is dense policy jargon that an agent cannot operationalize, so brevity comes at the cost of intelligibility.

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 parameters, no output schema, and closed-world read-only annotations, the definition's only real job is to say when this tool is usable. It states the block and gives a fallback direction, but omits what triggers unblocking or whether calling it is ever worthwhile, leaving the agent to skip it on faith.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither helps nor harms parameter understanding.

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 never states what the tool does; it only announces that enriched dossiers and distress exports are 'unavailable.' An agent learns the tool is blocked but not what a distress feed export would contain or produce, so the verb+resource is left to the name alone.

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?

It does route the agent away from this tool toward 'explicit county/state retained notice records,' which is actionable steering. However, it never names the concrete sibling (e.g. gisdb_query_notices or gisdb_get_notice_dossier), so the agent must guess which of ~70 alternatives to call.

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