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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return fields and the Feature Service URL, enabling the agent to understand how the output feeds into other tools. It does not contradict 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 tool's purpose, then immediately states the return value and downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it defines the search domain (LA County GIS), lists example topics, specifies the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url), and explains how to use the url with sibling tools. This fully covers the tool's role and integration.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (query, limit, org_id) with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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'), specifies the resource ('Los Angeles County GIS open geospatial datasets'), and provides concrete examples (parcels, parks). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly directing the returned URL to query_layer/layer_info, clarifying its role as a discovery 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?

It clearly states when to use this tool (to find datasets by keyword) and provides a clear downstream workflow ('pass that url to query_layer / layer_info'). While it doesn't explicitly exclude other search tools, the context makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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