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. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what the tool returns (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, Feature Service url) and how to use the result, which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and a clear next-step instruction. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the rich schema and annotations, the description is complete for a search tool. It covers purpose, return fields, and downstream usage (passing the URL to query_layer/layer_info), and no output schema exists to explain. There are no significant 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%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't elaborate on `query`, `limit`, or `org_id` specifics. 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 verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('City of McKinney GIS open geospatial datasets'), and a scope ('by keyword'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that the returned Feature Service `url` is meant to be passed to query_layer / layer_info, positioning search_datasets as the discovery step.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to find datasets by keyword) and provides a follow-up workflow ('pass that url to query_layer / layer_info'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative discovery tools, 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.