Install a database from a URL

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

Annotations already flag the write/destructive/open-world profile, and the description materially extends that: 1 GiB limits on download and expanded data, the requirement of exactly one MMDB inside archives, where files land (configured download folder vs. first folder in directory mode), and that no MaxMind credentials are used. It does not spell out what happens on name collisions beyond the schema's overwrite flag, so not a full 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by format acceptance, size limits, and destination behavior. No sentence is filler; each carries a constraint an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

For a destructive install operation, the description covers formats, size ceilings, destination logic, and credential behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so url, database, and overwrite are already documented in the schema. The description adds the destination-folder resolution rule, but url and overwrite semantics are left essentially to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+source: 'Download and load a database from an HTTP or HTTPS URL.' This operation is unmistakably distinct from the read-only siblings (verify_database, compare_databases, inspect_database, list_databases, lookup_*), none of which install anything.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies (loading a DB from a URL, with the accepted archive formats and size ceiling) and clarifies a common misconception by noting it does not use MaxMind credentials or persist the URL for updates. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stays below 5.

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