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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. Description adds meaningful context: returns dataset metadata (not features), includes workflow hint to pass url to query_layer/layer_info, and scopes to City of Pittsburgh GIS open data. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then cleanly lists returned fields and downstream usage. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url). It also provides cross-reference to sibling tools (query_layer/layer_info) for next steps, making it actionable and 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (query keyword, optional org override). 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search' with resource 'City of Pittsburgh GIS open geospatial datasets' and lists what is returned (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like query_layer/layer_info by stating the returned url should be passed 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?

Provides clear context: use for keyword search of Pittsburgh GIS datasets and then pass the returned url to query_layer/layer_info. It scopes usage to open geospatial datasets but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives beyond the downstream tools, so not a 5.

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