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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds transparency about the returned fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the chaining behavior (pass url to query_layer/layer_info), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the return shape and a usage tip. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler.

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?

With all parameters optional and well-documented, strong read-only/idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return values and workflow. It even tells the agent what to do with the returned URL, making the tool self-contained.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter (query, limit, org_id) fully described. The description only adds 'by keyword', which aligns with the query parameter but does not introduce new semantic value beyond the schema. 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 action (Search), target (City of Peachtree Corners GIS open geospatial datasets), and scope (by keyword, with examples like parcels and zoning). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the returned Feature Service URL can be passed to query_layer/layer_info, creating a clear workflow.

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 a discovery workflow: search for datasets first, then use the returned URL with query_layer/layer_info. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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