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

Annotations declare non-idempotent and non-read-only, and the description goes well beyond them: explicit rate limit (five per day per address), refusal conditions (session already holds a key or a sign-in), the side effect of exposing the key in the transcript, and the quota burn per call. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then precondition, then side effects, then post-call instructions. Every sentence carries operational weight, though the single unbroken paragraph could be split to make the refusal/rate-limit conditions scannable.

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 still tells the agent where the key lands (in this result / this session's transcript), what to do with it (persist as UNGOVR_API_KEY, start a new session), and what blocks a successful call. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter (client_version) and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including its stale-install rationale. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, 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 and resource (mints a 30-day UnGovr Open Data trial key), plus the exact scope: no account, 50 requests, 10 jurisdictions, whole-life limits. It also names the sibling (check_access) that surfaces the alternative route, so the agent can distinguish this tool from the rest of the set.

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?

Explicit precondition: 'Run it ONLY after the developer chose the no-account route over signing in', with a pointer to where the choice is presented (check_access setup.steps). That is a when-to-use, a when-not-to-use, and the alternative route all in one.

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