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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, and the description adds genuinely new context: dataset provenance and version, a result payload enumeration, and the authoritative-source claim. It stops short of describing result ordering or what a zero-match response looks like beyond the schema's note on unmatched commodity values.

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 tightly packed sentences with the resource identity first and the authoritative-use cases last; no filler. Slightly dense prose (version numbers, counts, filter list, return list all in one breath) but every clause carries information.

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 compensates by enumerating returned fields (id, name, state, coordinates, minerals, deposit type, resource figures). A read-only search tool with 0 required params and full schema coverage is otherwise well covered; only zero-result and ordering behavior remain unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents bbox format, limit bounds, state abbreviations, and the commodity vocabulary behavior. The description adds only that filters can be combined ("and/or") and a few example commodity strings, which is marginal over the schema — baseline 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?

Specific verb + resource: "Search USGS's 'Critical mineral deposits of the United States' database", with dataset version, record count, and geographic scope stated up front. It also enumerates both the filter dimensions and the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this call yields versus usgs_cmd_deposit_detail.

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 marks itself AUTHORITATIVE for two concrete question shapes ("where are US lithium/cobalt/REE deposits" and "which critical mineral deposits are in <state>"), which is strong routing guidance. It does not, however, name usgs_cmd_deposit_detail as the sibling to use for per-deposit detail, so the list-vs-detail boundary is left to inference.

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