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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description goes beyond this by specifying the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the downstream step, adding useful behavioral context.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second provides return value details and actionable next steps. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple discovery tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and how to proceed. It gives the domain scope (Town of Cary GIS) and examples of dataset types, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to choose and invoke the 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions and examples for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema; it only gives a sample query ('parcels') which is already present in the schema examples. 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 action: 'Search' with a specific resource: 'Town of Cary GIS open geospatial datasets' by keyword. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that the returned Feature Service url should be passed to query_layer / layer_info, establishing a different role.

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 concrete guidance by saying 'pass that url to query_layer / layer_info,' which implies this tool is for discovery before data access. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the mention of alternatives provides context for selecting this tool versus its siblings.

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