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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that — the data vintage (ver. 3.0, September 2026) and that records link back to MRDS/ARDF/USMIN — but says nothing about missing-data behavior, coverage, or return shape.

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?

One front-loaded sentence identifying the resource and scope, followed by a compact em-dash enumeration of fields. The field list is dense but each item conveys what the record contains; nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description does the important work of telling the agent what fields the full record contains and that it includes a link to underlying source records. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown id, missing fields).

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that id comes from usgs_cmd_deposits_search results with an example. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: retrieves the full record for one deposit from a named USGS database, and enumerates the content fields (minerals, deposit type, production history, references). It implicitly distinguishes itself from usgs_cmd_deposits_search by being the single-record detail view, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'full record for one deposit' and the schema note pointing to search results implies this is the follow-up call after usgs_cmd_deposits_search, but the description doesn't state when to use it versus the search tool or what to do if the id is unknown. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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