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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the intended downstream use, which goes beyond the structured annotations. It does not disclose rate limits or edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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: the first states purpose and scope, the second lists return fields and downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the structure is highly readable.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and is part of a larger toolset. The description fully covers what the tool returns and how to use the result with sibling tools, making it complete for the agent's decision-making. The schema covers parameter defaults and options, and annotations cover safety, so no critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (query, limit, org_id), so the schema already explains the parameters adequately. The description's mention of 'by keyword' aligns with the query parameter but adds no additional semantic nuance beyond the schema. Therefore, baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Adams County GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword.' It specifies the resource (Adams County GIS open geospatial datasets) and the action (search by keyword), and lists example dataset types. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating that its output (Feature Service url) is meant to be passed to query_layer / layer_info, positioning it as the entry point for dataset discovery.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for searching datasets by keyword and explicitly directs the user to pass the resulting url to query_layer / layer_info, implying a workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with all siblings, but the downstream link and keyword-search framing make its intended use unambiguous.

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