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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation detail: the exact return fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and a concrete integration step, especially useful since no output schema exists.

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 deliver purpose, scope, return shape, and downstream usage with zero redundancy. The verb+resource is front-loaded, and every clause 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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and integration. It could mention optional org_id behavior or empty/result-limit handling, but annotations and schema already fill most structural gaps.

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%, with clear descriptions for query, limit, and org_id. The description only says 'by keyword' and does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Search') with a well-defined resource ('City of Tampa GIS open geospatial datasets') and gives representative content categories. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it returns Feature Service URLs for use with 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?

Provides clear contextual guidance: the agent is told to search by keyword and can pass the returned URL to query_layer/layer_info, positioning this as the discovery stage. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons (e.g., search_within), so it stops 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.