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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns specific fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and references the City of Richmond scope, which is helpful given there is no output schema.

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 with no superfluous content: the first sentence states the action and scope, the second lists return fields and adjacent tools. It is front-loaded and every clause contributes to understanding.

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 tool is simple, and the schema fully documents parameters while annotations cover the safety profile. The description explains return values and gives a workflow hint, but it does not mention behavior when query is omitted or org_id is customized. Given schema already describes these parameters, the missing context is minor.

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 schema description covers 100% of parameters with explicit descriptions for query, limit, and org_id. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the keyword-search mention, so the baseline score 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's purpose: searching City of Richmond GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, with concrete examples of dataset types and a specific list of returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the follow-up tools query_layer/layer_info, making the resource and action unambiguous.

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 clear workflow: use this tool to discover datasets, then pass the returned Feature Service URL to query_layer/layer_info. It does not explicitly list alternative search tools or state when not to use it, but the workflow guidance provides practical usage context.

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