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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact returned fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, URL) and notes that org_id can override the default org. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 primary purpose, then concise return-value details. No wasted words; every phrase adds 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?

For a simple search tool with only 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns, its scope, and how to use the results with sibling tools. It is complete without being verbose.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond reinforcing 'by keyword' and the URL pass-through, but it doesn't need to.

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 names the resource ('City of Roanoke GIS open geospatial datasets') with examples (parcels, zoning). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning query_layer / layer_info as the follow-up tools.

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?

Explicitly says to search by keyword and then 'pass that url to query_layer / layer_info', providing a clear workflow and alternatives. This tells the agent when to use this tool and how it fits into a broader process.

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