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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds value by detailing the return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the purpose of the url (to pass to query_layer/layer_info). 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?

The description is two sentences long, immediate front-loading the purpose and then specifying the return format and follow-up use. Every sentence is informative and concise with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly enumerates return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and explains how to use the url. This is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke and consume results. The connection to sibling tools (query_layer/layer_info) completes the workflow context.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning for parameters, but it clarifies the role of org_id as optional to override default organization. This is a small but useful addition.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Search Sarpy County GIS open geospatial datasets...by keyword.' It lists examples of datasets (parcels, addresses, zoning) and explicitly states what each result contains (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer or 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 names the next step: 'pass that url to query_layer / layer_info.' This provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives beyond referencing downstream tools. It implies usage for dataset discovery, which is adequate.

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