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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations lack: the exact return payload (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the url hand-off contract. It omits pagination/limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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, zero filler. The lookup purpose comes first and the downstream routing instruction comes second, which is the right order for an agent deciding what to call next.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely, including the url field an agent needs to chain calls. The only gap is pagination/limit interplay and whether results are ranked, which is minor for a discovery tool.

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 each of the three parameters (limit, query, org_id) is documented in the schema with range and examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond naming searchable content domains, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) plus resource (City of Tulsa GIS open geospatial datasets) and even enumerates the content domains (parcels, zoning, public works). It names the downstream siblings (query_layer / layer_info), so an agent can distinguish it from them without opening a schema.

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 the agent what to do with the output: pass the returned Feature Service url to query_layer / layer_info. That is real routing guidance. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g. vs. search_within or list_subscriptions), 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.