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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the return format ('attribute rows (and geometry)') and provides a sampling technique. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, then a useful usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and is a read-only query operation. The description covers the purpose, key parameters, return format, and a sampling tip. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly. It could mention error behavior or limit constraints, but the schema covers limit, and the description is adequate given the annotations.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description restates parameter names (where, out_fields, order_by, limit, offset) and adds the note about 'SQL-like' and 'comma-separated', but these are also in the schema. The only additive semantic is the source of the URL (from search_datasets), which is minor. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Query an ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer by its url'. It specifies the resource type and the action (query), and mentions it takes the URL from search_datasets, which differentiates it from sibling tools like layer_info or search_within. The return of attribute rows (and geometry) further clarifies purpose.

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 clear context: the URL comes from search_datasets, and it provides a sampling tip (where='1=1' + out_fields='*'). It implicitly distinguishes from metadata tools but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use. Overall, clear usage context without exclusions.

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