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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the exact fields returned (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and the fact that the url is meant for query_layer/layer_info. It doesn't contradict annotations and enriches them with workflow information.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second lists return fields and the follow-up workflow. Every word earns its place; it's front-loaded and highly scannable.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the result (pass url to query_layer/layer_info). Annotations cover safety, and the parameter schema covers inputs. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly and integrate it into a workflow.

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% — all three parameters (limit, query, org_id) have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain default behaviors or formatting). Given the high coverage, 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?

The description states a specific action (search) and resource (City of Yakima GIS open geospatial datasets) with examples (parcels, zoning, public works & city services). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like query_layer and layer_info by noting the returned url is meant for those tools, so an agent knows this tool is for discovery, not direct data retrieval.

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 explicitly tells the agent to pass the returned url to query_layer / layer_info, which implies when this tool is appropriate (finding datasets) and what to do next. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., search_within), but the context of the follow-up tools provides clear usage direction.

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