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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive hints. The description adds useful context: data source (USGS 3DEP, primarily US), licensing (CC BY 4.0), rate limit (5K req/day), and return fields. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the added operational details go beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is information-dense with a clear first sentence leading. It includes return fields, source, and licensing in a few sentences without excessive fluff. Slightly long due to background on LiDAR but still efficient.

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?

Given the simple 4-parameter bbox schema, an output schema exists, and annotations are rich, the description covers purpose, usage context, return fields, and operational limits. It lacks explicit coordinate system details, but schema ranges (e.g., -90 to 90) imply decimal degrees. Complete enough for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100% for all 4 parameters, with each having a clear description (e.g., 'Northern boundary of search area in decimal degrees'). The description adds only the concept of a bounding box, which is already implied. No additional semantics beyond schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb (search), resource (OpenTopography catalog), and scope (LiDAR point cloud datasets covering a bounding box). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like opentopo.catalog.dem and opentopodata.elevation by naming the exact data type (LiDAR) and the search nature.

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 description says it's 'Essential for discovering available high-resolution terrain data before requesting downloads', which implies a pre-download discovery use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling tools exist such as opentopo.catalog.dem for DEM data.

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