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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the capacity types and filters available, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as result limits, pagination, or authentication needs beyond what annotations and schema 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently packs the verb, resource, capacity types, and filter dimensions, though the parenthetical '(DC Hub Capacity Source)' is slightly redundant.

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 that the tool has an output schema and fully described parameters, the description only needs to explain the search scope. It does that well by naming the capacity types and filter dimensions, though it could mention how this tool relates to sibling dchub tools for full completeness.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that min_kw/min_mw filter by size and region/state/market filter by location, but this largely restates the schema without adding new semantics like slug formats or units beyond what is present.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('data-center capacity available to buy or lease'), and enumerates the capacity types (powered land, powered shells, turnkey capacity, colocation). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as dchub_search_facilities, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'available to buy or lease' implies the tool's use case, and the filtering dimensions are stated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dchub_search_facilities or dchub_get_market_intel, leaving usage to inference.

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