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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by listing the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the fact that the url is meant for downstream layer tools, which is not captured by 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 a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and follows with the return value details. Every clause is informative and there is no redundant wording.

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 description covers the tool's role, scope, return fields, and downstream usage, which is sufficient for a simple read-only search tool with fully documented schema. It does not mention optionality of query or pagination, but these are minor gaps given the schema coverage.

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% and all three parameters (query, limit, org_id) are described. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning; its mention of 'keyword' merely mirrors the query parameter description.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Search City of Salem GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword' and lists example content categories. It also names the return fields and directs the user to query_layer/layer_info, which distinguishes it from those sibling 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?

It implies the tool is for dataset discovery and that the returned URL should be used with query_layer/layer_info, providing a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative discovery tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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