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 meaningful context about the return structure (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the integration with query_layer/layer_info, which goes beyond the annotation coverage. 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first states the action and scope, the second details return fields and downstream usage. Both sentences earn their place and the description is front-loaded with the verb 'Search'.

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, return fields, and how to use the result with sibling tools. Parameters are documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety. No critical information 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 descriptions cover 100% of the three parameters (query, limit, org_id), so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions keyword search, which is already captured in the schema, and adds no additional parameter-specific meaning.

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 identifies the tool as a keyword search for Mono County GIS open geospatial datasets, specifies the resource scope, and lists the return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on geospatial dataset discovery and providing a URL for downstream use.

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 downstream context by instructing users to pass the returned Feature Service URL to query_layer or layer_info. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, but the intended workflow is evident.

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