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

The annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and the intended follow-up usage, which goes beyond the structured 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, resource, and scope, and the second specifies return values and next steps. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully explains what results look like (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and how to use them. For a search/discovery tool, this is sufficient context to enable correct invocation and downstream chaining to query_layer or layer_info.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (query, limit, org_id). The description does add the context that 'keyword' refers to terms like parcels or zoning, and that results are Linn County GIS datasets, but this is marginal beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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') plus a clear resource ('Linn County GIS open geospatial datasets') and scope ('by keyword'). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like query_layer and layer_info by explicitly stating it returns Feature Service URLs to be passed to those tools.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to find datasets by keyword. It also provides usage guidance by telling the agent to pass the returned url to query_layer or layer_info, which is a concrete downstream action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternative search tools like search_within.

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