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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return payload (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url), providing behavioral transparency beyond the annotations without any contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, and includes examples in parentheses. Every clause adds value: what it searches, examples, return fields, and downstream usage. No redundant or filler text.

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?

The description is complete for a search/discovery tool: it states the purpose, return structure, and chaining to sister tools. Given the tool has no output schema and the annotations cover safety, this is sufficient. It could mention default limit or behavior when no query is provided, but the schema already covers those details.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by explaining how the returned Feature Service url is meant to be used with query_layer/layer_info, which clarifies the purpose of the query and the result's role in the workflow.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'City of Peoria GIS open geospatial datasets' with concrete examples (parcels, zoning). It also states the returned fields and names downstream tools (query_layer/layer_info), which differentiates this discovery tool from data querying 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 implies a workflow by instructing to pass the returned Feature Service URL to query_layer/layer_info, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, so it's slightly short of a 5.

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