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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value in "accessible" (results are access-scoped to the caller) and "one ordered result set" (cross-kind merged ordering). It says nothing about paging behavior despite offset/limit existing, or about how matching works when query is omitted.

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, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the workflow hint trailing. 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?

Four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no description of result shape or pagination mean the definition is only just sufficient for a federated search tool. It does not explain default ordering, what a result entry contains, or how to page through more than `limit` matches.

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 coverage is 0% and none of the four parameters are documented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It partially covers `kinds` by naming the kind categories, but the vocabulary diverges from the enum ("datasets" vs `source`, "published maps" vs `map`), and `limit`, `offset`, and `query` are never mentioned at all — leaving pagination semantics entirely implicit.

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 concrete verb (search) plus the resource set and enumerates the four kinds returned (datasets, projects, published maps, collections) as one ordered result set. That is specific enough to distinguish it from single-resource getters, but it never names the obvious sibling `search_view`, so an agent must infer whether this federated search supersedes it.

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?

"Use it to find GIS data or a map before calling the get tools" gives a clear entry-point role in the workflow and implies the ordering search → get. It stops short of exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. `search_view`, `project_configure_search`, `project_resolve_places`), so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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