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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete return-value details (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the inter-tool workflow, which goes beyond the structured metadata.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the core function; the second enumerates output fields and the recommended next step. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, output structure, and clear follow-up usage. It is sufficient for an agent to select the tool and understand what to do with results.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond saying 'by keyword' which matches the query parameter, but it does not explain the limit or org_id in more depth.

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 ('Lake County GIS open geospatial datasets'), including example categories. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the returned Feature Service URL can be passed to 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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (finding open GIS datasets by keyword) and explicitly indicates a follow-up action ('pass that url to query_layer / layer_info'). It doesn't state when not to use it or name alternative search tools, but the workflow is evident.

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