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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description supplements this by detailing the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the data source scope, which are behavioral traits not captured by annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope; the second states the output and actionable next step. Both sentences carry essential information, and the description is front-loaded with the action verb.

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 fully documented params and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, the domain (Harrisburg GIS), and how the output connects to sibling tools. No output schema is needed because the description explicitly lists the return fields.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning keyword search, which is already covered by the query parameter description. It meets the baseline of 3 but adds no extra value.

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 a clear resource ('City of Harrisburg GIS open geospatial datasets') and scope ('by keyword'). It lists example dataset categories and explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating that the returned URL can 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (discovering geospatial datasets) and gives concrete downstream guidance ('pass that url to query_layer / layer_info'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the workflow context is strong.

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