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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating exactly what each result contains (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and how the url is consumed downstream. Minor gaps: no note on result caps/ordering or auth.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the first establishes scope and search mode, the second states the return shape and the handoff tool. No filler whatsoever.

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?

With no output schema present, the description correctly shouldered the burden of describing return values, and it did so field-by-field. Combined with the covered annotations and fully-described parameters, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, query, and org_id, and the description adds only the 'by keyword' framing for the query parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load; no extra syntax or defaults are supplied.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus resource (geospatial datasets), with named scope (Stanislaus County GIS) and concrete content categories (parcels, addresses, zoning, public works). It also names the follow-on siblings query_layer/layer_info, letting an agent place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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 clearly implies the when (keyword discovery of datasets) and explicitly routes the agent onward by telling it to pass the returned url to query_layer / layer_info. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a statement that an already-known layer should skip straight to query_layer, so it falls short of a 5.

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