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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context by listing the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service URL) and the scope of datasets (parcels, zoning, public works & city services). It does not mention potential limitations like rate limits or pagination, but given the annotation coverage, a 4 is appropriate.

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 resource, and every word adds value. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, return data, and downstream usage without any 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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return values, the scope, and how to use the results, making it sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 with clear descriptions (limit, query, org_id), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is justified.

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 resource ('City of Henderson GIS open geospatial datasets'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining that it returns Feature Service URLs to be used with query_layer/layer_info. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from other 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to find datasets, after which you pass the returned URL to query_layer or layer_info. It provides a direct follow-up path but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative search tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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