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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and explaining how to chain the output to other tools. It does not detail pagination or rate limits, but those are not critical for a search tool.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every clause adds useful information: dataset scope, examples, return fields, and a cross-reference to related tools.

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 simple search tool with rich schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, its scope, the output structure, and the recommended next step. No critical information is missing; even pagination or authentication would be redundant given the open data context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add new parameter-specific semantics; it only echoes the 'keyword' aspect of the query parameter, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Cranston GIS open geospatial datasets'), and a clear scope ('parcels, zoning & city services'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the returned Feature Service URL is used with query_layer / layer_info, making the tool's role in the workflow unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for keyword-based dataset discovery, and explicitly directs the user to pass the returned URL to query_layer / layer_info for subsequent operations. It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use the tool, but the alternative tools are named and the workflow is clear.

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