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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond this: it specifies the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and the open-data nature. No contradiction 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no redundant or filler content. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second sentence concisely lists return fields and the downstream workflow. Every word 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?

For a tool with 3 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how the output integrates with sibling tools. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly lists the return fields, so the agent is well-equipped.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (query, limit, org_id) — it does not introduce new syntax or format nuances. It only reiterates 'keyword' which is already in the schema examples.

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 identifies the verb ('Search'), the resource ('City of Asheville GIS open geospatial datasets'), and the scope (parcels, zoning, public works & city services). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly linking to query_layer and layer_info via the Feature Service url.

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 to find datasets by keyword, then pass the returned url to query_layer or layer_info. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative search tools (e.g., search_within, discover_tools) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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