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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail by listing exactly what is returned (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and the recommended follow-up action. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and then compactly details return values and integration with other tools. There is no redundancy or unnecessary wording.

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 search tool with optional parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results. It also explains the purpose of the returned URL, making the tool's role in the workflow clear.

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 full descriptions and examples for all parameters, covering them 100%. The description adds domain context (e.g., parcels, zoning) but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameters themselves beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 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 tool searches City of Courtenay GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, and lists example dataset categories (parcels, zoning, parks & city services). It specifies the resource and action distinctly, and differentiates from siblings like query_layer and layer_info by indicating the returned URL is for them.

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 use for discovering datasets before querying, and explicitly instructs passing the returned URL to query_layer or layer_info. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative search tools like search_within, so it lacks exclusions.

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