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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description adds provenance (sourced from USGS MRData), the authoritative claim, and enumerates the returned fields including development status values, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 dense sentences with the capability front-loaded and the return payload second. Slightly heavy on enumerated field names, but every element is informative and there is no filler.

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 listing returned fields (deposit id, name, status, coordinates, commodity codes). Pagination behavior is only implied via the limit parameter, leaving a minor gap, but an agent has enough to select and call the tool correctly.

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 both the parameters and their formats (bbox string form, limit default/max, commodity symbol convention) are already documented. The description's mention of the three search axes adds framing but no syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) plus resource (USGS Mineral Resources Data System), names the three query modes, and quotes concrete use cases ("what has been mined near here"). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by citing mrdata_commodities for code listing and listing the exact site fields returned.

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 frames the tool as AUTHORITATIVE for proximity and commodity-occurrence questions, and routes the agent to mrdata_commodities for symbol lists. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer mrdata_deposit for a single site), so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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