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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds return-field details and a downstream usage note, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, default limits, or any caveats about changing data. Some value over annotations, but not rich.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then lists return fields and a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains return values (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and how to use the url with siblings. For a simple search tool, this covers the essential context, though it could mention default organization or sorting; the schema already handles limits.

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 covers all three parameters (query, limit, org_id) with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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' with a clear resource ('Glynn County GIS open geospatial datasets') and scope ('by keyword'). It also lists what is returned and how it connects to sibling tools like query_layer/layer_info, which distinguishes it from 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 provides clear contextual guidance by explaining the workflow: search datasets, then pass the returned Feature Service url to query_layer/layer_info. This indicates when to use this tool versus its downstream siblings, though it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or when not to use alternatives.

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