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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavioral details: it returns metadata fields including name, summary, record_count, owner/org, and the Feature Service url. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't disclose rate limits or auth requirements, which are likely unnecessary for a simple search.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second lists return fields and handoff instructions. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what will be returned and how to proceed with the results. Annotations cover safety and open-world behavior. It is complete for its intended use case.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter details for query, limit, and org_id. The description does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 tool searches Prince William County GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, with specific examples of datasets. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing users to pass the returned URL to query_layer/layer_info.

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 explicit usage context: search by keyword, and then hand off the returned Feature Service URL to query_layer/layer_info. This tells the agent when to use this tool and what to do next, effectively differentiating it from related tools.

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