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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond these by specifying the exact returned fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the intended downstream action. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by the return value and usage. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields. It also explains how to chain with sibling tools (query_layer/layer_info) and notes the optional org_id override, making the tool self-contained for an agent.

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 100% coverage for all three parameters (query, limit, org_id) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds minor context by mentioning the default Delaware County GIS scope and the workflow, but it does not substantially enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 Delaware County GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword and returns each dataset's metadata. It distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly mentioning the Feature Service URL is passed to query_layer/layer_info, which are sibling tools.

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 a clear workflow by instructing the agent to pass the returned URL to query_layer/layer_info, implying usage for dataset discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with other search-focused siblings like search_within, so it is slightly incomplete.

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