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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds value beyond them by detailing the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful follow-up 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word earns its place. It efficiently conveys purpose, return values, and a nested tool relationship without padding.

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 is simple, the schema fully documents all three parameters, and the description enumerates the return fields and the next-step tools. There is no missing obvious information; the description is complete for its intended discovery use case.

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 does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely echoes 'by keyword' for the query parameter and does not mention limit or org_id explicitly.

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') and resource ('Chatham County GIS open geospatial datasets') with keyword-based scope. It also lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_layer and layer_info by mentioning the url handoff.

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 explicitly guides usage by stating 'pass that url to query_layer / layer_info', indicating when to use this discovery tool versus the data-retrieval tools. It also implies the search is a prerequisite to further queries, giving clear context without exclusions.

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