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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add a gating condition — output is withheld until 'every claimed fact and export right has source-bound evidence' — which is real behavioral context. But that condition is vague and the description never says what a call returns when the gate is not satisfied.

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 short sentences with no filler, so nothing is wasteful in length. But the front-loaded sentence is dense jargon about 'claimed facts and export rights' that obscures rather than clarifies, and the more actionable content (the redirect) is buried second.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what a caller receives, and it does not. It never clarifies whether this returns an error, a stub, or a fallback payload, which is exactly what an agent needs before spending a call on a zero-input tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. It neither helps nor hurts; the schema closes the object with additionalProperties: false and exposes nothing to explain.

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?

The description never states what calling this tool actually does. Instead of describing a notice-dossier retrieval, it declares that dossiers are 'unavailable', leaving the agent unable to tell whether the call errors, returns an empty set, or returns a gate explanation. The only concrete signal is a redirect to county/state retained notice records.

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?

There is a genuine routing signal in 'Use explicit county/state retained notice records instead', which implicitly points at gisdb_query_notices. However, it never says when, if ever, this tool itself should be invoked, so the usage condition for the tool being described is left entirely to inference.

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