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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond annotations by enumerating the exact fields returned (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and the chaining behavior. It doesn't disclose pagination or rate limits, but those are not critical given the safe, idempotent nature.

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 fluff. The first sentence states purpose with scope, the second details the return and gives a chaining hint. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return values and how the results integrate with other tools (query_layer/layer_info). It covers the essential behavior and workflow without unnecessary detail.

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 100%, with each parameter (limit, query, org_id) already described. The description's mention of 'by keyword' aligns with the query parameter but adds no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does 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 clearly states the tool searches City of Brampton GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, with specific examples of dataset categories. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the return payload (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and explicitly mentions query_layer / layer_info as downstream consumers, setting it apart as a discovery tool.

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 implies the tool is for initial dataset discovery and explicitly instructs to pass the returned url to query_layer / layer_info, providing a clear usage pattern. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the chaining guidance is strong and contextually sufficient.

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