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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and that the url is intended for further use. 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second lists return fields and downstream usage. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does thoroughly (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url). It also covers the discovery-to-query workflow, making it complete for a read-only search tool with fully documented optional parameters.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema: it references 'keyword' (query) but does not elaborate on limit or org_id. The schema already documents all three parameters adequately.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('City of Aurora GIS open geospatial datasets'), and the scope ('by keyword'). It also lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_layer and layer_info, which operate on a specific dataset URL rather than discovering datasets.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to search and discover datasets by keyword. It provides a concrete downstream workflow by instructing to pass the returned Feature Service url to query_layer or layer_info. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternative search tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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