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

The annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by detailing exactly what is returned (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, and Feature Service URL) and that it serves as a discovery mechanism for other tools. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the action and scope. The second sentence efficiently explains the return value and downstream usage. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool searches, the scope of data, the exact fields returned, and how to integrate with sibling tools. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the description handles the return-value explanation since no output schema is present.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'keyword' parameter but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It correctly mentions the primary parameter (query) but does not elaborate on limit or org_id, which are already well-documented in the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: searching City of Centennial GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword. It lists specific dataset types (parcels, zoning, public works) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming query_layer and layer_info as downstream consumers of the returned URL.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (discovering GIS datasets) and hints at the workflow by telling the user to pass the returned URL to query_layer or layer_info. It does not explicitly exclude alternative search tools like search_within, but the specific domain and examples give adequate guidance for a typical use case.

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