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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and how to use the result, which goes beyond the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, includes the resource scope, and conveys return details and downstream usage. Every clause earns its place with no redundant information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly enumerates the return fields and gives actionable downstream guidance. It does not mention error behavior, pagination, or the open-world nature of results, but given the annotations and schema, it is sufficiently complete for a search 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (query, limit, org_id), giving 100% coverage. The description reinforces that search is by keyword but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 tool searches City of Onkaparinga GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, with a specific resource and action. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the returned Feature Service url should be passed to query_layer/layer_info, which clarifies its unique role.

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 context for use (searching datasets by keyword) and explicitly points to downstream tools (query_layer/layer_info) for further action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it against other search tools, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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