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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about 'open' geospatial datasets, the return structure (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, URL), and the chaining behavior. No contradiction.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second lists return values and next steps. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains return fields and how to use them. It also gives enough context about the data scope and the discovery-to-query workflow, making it self-sufficient for an agent to decide and proceed.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter text. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'by keyword' (mapping to query) and return fields, but doesn't elaborate on limit or org_id behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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') with a clear resource ('Lincoln & Lancaster County GIS open geospatial datasets') and scope (by keyword). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like query_layer and layer_info by explicitly stating it returns Feature Service URLs for those tools to consume.

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 context: use this to discover datasets and then pass the returned URL to query_layer/layer_info. This implies a workflow and names alternatives. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other search-like siblings (e.g., search_within), so it lacks a 'when not to use' statement.

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