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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output structure (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, and Feature Service url) and that the url is meant for query_layer/layer_info. This adds value without contradicting the 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 long, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then quickly covers the return format and downstream usage. Every word contributes information; no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and clarifying the input scope (City of Kingston GIS). It also connects to sibling tools. Minor gaps like parameter interaction or edge cases are covered by the detailed schema and annotations, so a 4 is fitting.

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%, with each parameter (limit, query, org_id) already fully described in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning or context to the parameters themselves; it only mentions the returned url. Therefore, 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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Search City of Kingston GIS open geospatial datasets... by keyword.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_layer and layer_info by positioning itself as the discovery/search step, and lists the return fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: searching for datasets and then passing the returned Feature Service 'url' to query_layer or layer_info. It implies when to use this tool (to find datasets) versus when to use the query tools (to work with a specific dataset). However, it lacks explicit when-not or alternative exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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