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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it enumerates the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and provides workflow integration, which helps the agent anticipate outputs. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states purpose and scope; the second describes return fields and next steps. No wasted words, every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key return fields and indicating how to use the output with sibling tools. It covers purpose, scope, and return format adequately. Minor omissions like pagination behavior or empty-result handling exist, but they are not critical for this 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 100%, with each parameter (query, limit, org_id) already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra parameter detail, only reinforcing the 'by keyword' nature of the query. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('City of Albuquerque GIS open geospatial datasets') with clear scope (parcels, zoning, public works & city services). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the returned Feature Service url is meant for query_layer / layer_info, making the tool's role clear.

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 context: use this tool to discover datasets, then pass the returned url to query_layer or layer_info for further access. It names specific sibling tools as next steps, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if you already have a url, go directly to query_layer).

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