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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details beyond annotations: it returns dataset metadata (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, URL) and specifies the downstream use of the URL. It also notes the default scope (City of Irvine GIS) and that org_id can override. No contradictions with annotations.

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, includes examples of dataset types (parcels, zoning, parks), enumerates return fields, and gives clear downstream instruction. Every sentence is purposeful and adds value.

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?

The tool is a read-only search with 3 optional params and no output schema. The description covers what it does, what it returns, and how to use the results, making it self-contained. The schema provides parameter details and examples, so no significant missing context exists.

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 schema descriptions cover all three parameters (query, limit, org_id) with meanings, examples, and defaults. The description adds context that 'query' is a keyword and that the default org is City of Irvine GIS, which aligns with org_id. However, it doesn't elaborate on each parameter, and the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline 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 Irvine GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like query_layer/layer_info by explaining that returned URLs should be passed to those tools, indicating this is a discovery tool, not a data querying tool.

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 on when to use this tool: to find datasets by keyword, then pass the returned URL to query_layer or layer_info. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions, but the workflow is implied through the downstream usage guidance, giving better direction than many alternatives.

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