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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service URL) and downstream usage, which goes beyond the minimal annotation 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently conveys purpose, scope, return values, and the intended downstream workflow.

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?

With 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, return format, and how it connects to sibling tools (query_layer / layer_info). It provides enough context 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'keyword' aligns with the 'query' parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource ('City of Eagan GIS open geospatial datasets') with example categories. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it returns dataset metadata and a Feature Service URL, which can then be passed to query_layer/layer_info.

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 mentions a workflow: pass the returned URL to query_layer / layer_info, which implies when to use those alternatives. It provides context for the search capability but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or exhaustive exclusions.

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