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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond that by specifying what data is returned (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service URL) and how the output should be used, which is useful behavioral context not captured by 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: the first states the core purpose with examples, the second explains the output and chaining to other tools. Every word earns its place, front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context by detailing return fields and the intended follow-up workflow. It omits potential nuances like pagination or the default limit, but those are in the schema. Overall complete for a search/discovery tool.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic context by providing example query keywords ('parcels, zoning, public safety & city services') and mentioning 'owner/org' which loosely relates to org_id. It does not substantially enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 searches City of New Orleans GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, with specific examples of dataset themes. It also defines the return content and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools query_layer and layer_info by directing the output URL 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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (for finding datasets) and implies alternatives by instructing to pass the resulting Feature Service URL to query_layer/layer_info for further data operations. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use this tool or naming exclusions.

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