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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and chaining to query_layer/layer_info. It does not contradict annotations. No extra behavioral traits like rate limits are mentioned, but the safety profile is covered.

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 that are clear and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second details outputs and integration. No unnecessary information, every word earns its place.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description fully explains what it does, what it returns, and how the output connects to other tools. The absence of an output schema is compensated by listing the specific return fields. Complete for its complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (query, limit, org_id) already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referring to 'keyword' search, which aligns with the query parameter. Baseline 3 per rubric is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource ('Washington DC GIS open geospatial datasets') with examples (parcels, zoning, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by stating the output URL is meant for query_layer / layer_info, making the tool's role in a pipeline clear.

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 implies when to use this tool (to find datasets by keyword) and provides guidance for downstream usage ('pass that url to query_layer / layer_info'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for dataset discovery, so it misses the full 'when-not' clarity.

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