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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real value beyond them: it enumerates the preconditions gate (retained source, rights clearance, manifest, inventory, hash, artifact evidence) and explicitly says no email is sent despite the legacy email param. That prevents the agent from treating this as a lead-capture call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, zero filler. The second sentence is dense but every clause (preconditions, no email, no checkout, no synthetic geometry) carries distinct 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 does explain the return condition ('unavailable until...'), which is the key output signal. However, required input semantics (county/state) remain undefined, and there's no indication of what a successful 'available' response contains or how preconditions are evaluated.

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 33% — only 'email' is documented, and the description reinforces that it's a no-op. The required 'county' and 'state' parameters have no description in either schema or description; the agent gets no hint on expected format (e.g., 2-letter state code) or matching semantics. With low coverage the description should compensate and does not.

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: 'Check verified county sample availability.' The second sentence clarifies what the check means in practice ('returns unavailable until...'), which is a genuine behavior, not a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling that performs the actual checkout, so it's clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

'No email, checkout or synthetic geometry is produced' implies this is a pre-flight check and that gisdb_create_checkout / gisdb_download_sample_bundle handles the real transaction, but the agent must infer that routing. There is no explicit 'use this before X' or 'use Y instead' statement.

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