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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds transparency by specifying the return payload (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service URL) and the intended downstream usage, which goes beyond what annotations capture.

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 that are front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return value details and a workflow hint. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no redundancy 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to use the result, covering the essential context for the agent. It also provides examples and the scope of data (Lancaster County GIS), making the tool's behavior complete for practical use.

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% parameter descriptions for query, limit, and org_id, so the baseline is appropriate. The description does not add extra detail about parameter syntax or formatting beyond the schema, but it reinforces the role of query in keyword search.

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 searches Lancaster County GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, with specific examples (parcels, addresses, zoning). It distinguishes itself by mentioning the return of Feature Service URLs and the passing of those to query_layer/layer_info, which contrasts with sibling tools that operate on specific layers.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool: to discover datasets by keyword before querying their data. It implies alternatives by directing the user to pass the resulting URL to query_layer or layer_info, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives like search_within.

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