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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the chaining expectation. No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The action (search) is front-loaded, followed by return details and chaining guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields and hinting at chaining. It covers the domain and examples. It could mention error handling or pagination, but for a straightforward search tool, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides examples and mentions the default org, but adds little beyond what the schema describes for each parameter.

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 that the tool searches GIS datasets by keyword, specifies the domain (City of Round Rock), lists examples (parcels, zoning), and distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining the output URL is meant for 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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool (searching datasets by keyword) and gives chain guidance (pass the URL to query_layer/layer_info). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives like discover_tools. The chaining advice adds value but could be more comprehensive.

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