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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and explains how to use the returned url, going beyond 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose and scope; second lists return fields and chaining. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 3 optional params and no output schema, the description covers the core: what it searches, what it returns, and how to use results. It also accounts for sibling tools by pointing to query_layer/layer_info. No significant gaps.

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 describes all three parameters with clear descriptions (query, limit, org_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond 'by keyword', but it does not conflict with schema and provides contextual scope.

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 names the exact resource ('City of Johnson City GIS open geospatial datasets') with examples of scope ('parcels, zoning, public works & city services'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like query_layer by stating it returns Feature Service URLs for further querying.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent what to do with the results ('pass that url to query_layer / layer_info'), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The chaining instruction implies this tool is for discovery, while query_layer/layer_info are for data access.

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