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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by listing the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service URL) and the downstream integration with other tools. This provides useful behavioral detail without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds value. It includes examples of search terms and explains the output's downstream use without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return fields and directs the agent to the next steps (query_layer/layer_info). It does not detail response structure (e.g., array vs object), but the zero-parameter requirement and schema coverage reduce the need for additional context. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 fully describes all three parameters (query, limit, org_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify parameter interactions beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource ('City of Raleigh GIS open geospatial datasets'), including examples of content (parcels, zoning, parks, transport & city services). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating the output is a Feature Service URL to pass to query_layer/layer_info, establishing its role as the discovery/search step.

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: use this tool to search datasets, then pass the returned URL to query_layer or layer_info. This gives clear context for when to use it relative to those siblings, though it does not explicitly mention alternative search tools or when not to use it. Still, the guidance is unambiguous for the primary use case.

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