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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value by disclosing the return structure (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the intended downstream use, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention edge cases like empty results, but this is a minor omission given the strong safety profile.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and specific examples, then provides return-value details and downstream guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff, and it is immediately scannable.

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?

The tool has only three parameters (fully described in schema), full annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the search scope, return fields, and the next-step tool usage, providing complete context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only general context ('by keyword') and does not elaborate on limit or org_id beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb (Search), resource (Maricopa County GIS open geospatial datasets), and scope (parcels, elections, public works & planning). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the output URL is intended for query_layer / layer_info, making the tool's role in the workflow explicit.

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 implies when to use this tool (to find datasets by keyword before querying layers) and explicitly names the downstream tools (query_layer / layer_info) as alternatives for further data access. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is clear for an agent.

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