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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and the follow-up action, providing useful behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first stating purpose/scope, the second stating return value and chaining. No wasted words or fluff.

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 description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the results. Combined with the rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the agent has all necessary information. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing the return fields explicitly.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, each with explanations and examples. The description's 'by keyword' adds little beyond the schema's own 'Keyword(s)' description. Thus the 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 it searches City of Kamloops GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, listing example categories (parcels, zoning, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining that the returned URL is intended for 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 the tool: to discover datasets by keyword and get their metadata and URL. It explicitly instructs the agent to pass the URL to query_layer/layer_info for further operations, effectively outlining a workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage scenario is well implied.

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