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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by disclosing the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and the recommended next action, which is beyond the structured metadata.

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 a tight two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core action (search datasets by keyword) and the second sentence details the return payload and the downstream workflow. No wasted words or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return values and provides a clear handoff to related tools. It does not mention pagination or the limit parameter's default, but these are covered in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. It does mention 'keyword' implicitly, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already covers, keeping this at the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Search'), a defined resource ('California State Parks GIS open geospatial datasets'), and the scope ('by keyword'). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by detailing the return fields and pointing to downstream tools (query_layer / layer_info), making its role in the workflow unmistakable.

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 on when to use the tool (to discover datasets by keyword) and even instructs what to do with the results (pass the returned url to query_layer / layer_info). It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives among the sibling tools, but the workflow guidance is sufficient for most use cases.

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