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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact output fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the next-step workflow, which goes beyond the annotation information without contradicting it.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second explains the return format and downstream tool usage. No redundant information, fully front-loaded.

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 fully accounts for return values and the follow-up action (passing the URL to query_layer/layer_info). Combined with solid annotations and a small, clearly-documented parameter set, the tool is well-contextualized for an agent.

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 all three parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it offers relevant examples of valid keywords (parcels, zoning, flood) which slightly enriches the query parameter context.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Honolulu GIS open geospatial datasets') with concrete examples (parcels, addresses, zoning). It also distinguishes itself by explaining that the output is dataset metadata with a URL to be passed to query_layer/layer_info, setting it apart from those sibling 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 provides clear usage context: use this tool to find datasets by keyword, then pass the returned Feature Service URL to query_layer or layer_info. It implies a workflow but does not explicitly state exclusions or mention when not to use this tool relative to other siblings like discover_tools or search_within.

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