search_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing what the tool returns, that results are curated, that feature counts are approximate, and that both English and Armenian keywords are accepted. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or error behavior, but for a search/discovery tool this is sufficient.

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?

The description is four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives return characteristics, workflow guidance, and domain/language details in a logical order. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is returned, how to use the result, which domains exist, and language support. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and know what to do with the output.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating all valid domain values and noting that keywords work in both English and Armenian, which helps the agent construct valid queries. The schema already provides examples for query and domain, so the added value is meaningful but not huge.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find datasets'), names the resource ('Yerevan city GIS portal'), and clearly states the output shape (curated layers with layer_key, row semantics, geometry, approximate feature count, domain). It also distinguishes itself from downstream sibling tools by explicitly saying to use search_layers first, then pass layer_key to describe_layer / query_layer / query_near_point.

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 gives an explicit workflow: use this first to discover data, then pass the returned layer_key to the query/describe tools. It also lists supported domains. However, it does not explicitly contrast against sibling search tools like search_street or search_heritage, so an agent might still need to infer when those are more appropriate.

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