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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns dataset name, summary, record_count, owner/org, and a Feature Service URL, which is useful but not rich in additional behavioral context like rate limits, pagination, or auth. This is on par with the calibrated baseline for read-only tools with 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant phrases. It mentions the return fields, the URL, and the next step, all in a compact format. Every word earns its place.

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 three optional params and complete schema descriptions, the description covers the purpose, output content, and intended workflow (pass URL to query_layer/layer_info). The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's explicit list of returned fields. The tool's context is fully explained.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, org_id). The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond referring to 'by keyword', which maps to query. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'City of Novi GIS open geospatial datasets', and the action's scope (by keyword). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_layer and layer_info by explicitly describing what it returns (dataset metadata and a URL) and how to proceed with that URL.

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 provides clear usage context: it's the discovery tool for datasets, and it instructs the user to pass the returned URL to query_layer/layer_info for further data retrieval. It doesn't explicitly compare against all alternatives, but the workflow is unambiguous and gives enough guidance for when to use this tool vs. its siblings.

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