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

With annotations already covering read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, the description adds value by disclosing what the tool returns (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and how results should be used (pass url to query_layer/layer_info). This is sufficient behavioral transparency given the strong annotation support and no contradictions.

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 main purpose and immediately followed by return-value details and downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity, 3 parameters, and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the result. It names the domain (Lee County GIS) and lists the return fields, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the response. No critical gaps.

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 already describes all three parameters (query, limit, org_id) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that search is by keyword and that org_id overrides the default Lee County GIS scope, but these details are already present in the schema. The description adds minimal new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Search'), a defined resource ('Lee County GIS open geospatial datasets'), and a scoping mechanism ('by keyword'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that it returns a Feature Service url to pass to query_layer/layer_info, which clarifies its role as a discovery tool rather than a query 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?

The description provides context on when to use the tool: when you need to find datasets by keyword and then use the returned URL with query_layer or layer_info. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other search-related siblings like search_within, nor does it state when not to use it. The downstream workflow is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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