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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return payload (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, and Feature Service URL) and how to use that URL, which helps the agent understand what to expect and what to do next. 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide essential return-value information. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail. The structure is well-organized for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, URL) and instructs what to do with the URL, making the tool's complete behavior clear. Combined with rich annotations for safety and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters (limit, query, org_id) already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond the schema, though it does mention keyword-based searching which aligns with the query parameter. Given the high schema coverage, the description provides no additional value beyond the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource ('City of Coquitlam GIS open geospatial datasets'), with concrete examples like 'parcels, zoning, parks & city services'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that the returned URL should be passed to query_layer / layer_info, establishing a distinct search-then-query workflow.

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 correct usage context by stating 'Search City of Coquitlam GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword' and then directing the user to pass the Feature Service URL to query_layer / layer_info. This provides a clear workflow for finding datasets versus querying them, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions. The guidance is effective but not exhaustive.

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