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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuine behavioral facts — results are permission-scoped ('accessible') and merged into 'one ordered result set' — but says nothing about pagination or result shape, matching the calibration's 'adds some value but not rich behavioral context' case.

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, no filler: the scope statement is front-loaded and the usage cue follows immediately. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do more than name the resource kinds — it omits pagination semantics for limit/offset and what a result record contains. Purpose and routing are adequate, but the invocation-level detail is thin for a 4-parameter search tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only loosely gestures at the 'kinds' parameter (and names 'datasets' where the enum says 'source'). query, limit, and offset are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer filtering and pagination behavior from bare names and numeric bounds.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (accessible geospatial resources) and enumerates the kinds covered — datasets, projects, published maps, collections. It partially differentiates from siblings by pointing at the get tools, though it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named geobble_search_view (saved searches).

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 gives the trigger and the downstream alternative: 'Use it to find GIS data or a map before calling the get tools.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there are no exclusions (e.g. when to prefer search_view or project-scoped listing tools) to complete the routing picture.

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