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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the return structure (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the intended downstream usage, which is helpful beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 that front-load the action and domain, then provide essential details. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.

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 explains what the tool returns and how to use the results with sibling tools, and mentions the optional org_id. It does not cover pagination or sorting behavior, but given the schema has a limit parameter, this is acceptable.

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 each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no significant additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches City of Toledo GIS datasets by keyword, lists exactly what is returned (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, feature service URL), and distinguishes from sibling tools by instructing to pass the URL to 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?

Explicitly tells when to use (search by keyword) and provides downstream guidance (pass URL to query_layer/layer_info). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling context and domain scope ('City of Toledo GIS open geospatial datasets') imply boundaries.

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