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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the exact returned fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and indicating how the output should be used (pass url to query_layer / layer_info). This goes beyond the annotation-only safety profile and helps the agent anticipate the tool's output.

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 core purpose and followed by concise return details and downstream integration guidance. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values and how to proceed. It does not explicitly handle the no-query case (e.g., list all datasets) or sorting/pagination, but the schema and examples cover optional parameters. The integration hint with query_layer / layer_info makes it complete enough for most use cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (query, limit, org_id) is already documented with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 Greenwood GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, with a specific verb ('search') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by enumerating the returned fields and explicitly pointing to query_layer / layer_info as follow-up tools, making its role in the tool family clear.

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 usage context: use this to discover datasets, then pass the returned Feature Service url to query_layer / layer_info. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but it communicates the primary workflow and implies the tool is the entry point for dataset discovery.

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