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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it returns attribute rows and geometry, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction between the description and the 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and lists the parameters, and the second gives a useful tip. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 params, 1 required) and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the source of the URL, and return type. Without an output schema, it could specify the output format in more detail, but it is still complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the 6 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a cohesive usage pattern (e.g., the sampling example) that ties the parameters together, and it lists the key parameters in the first sentence. This goes slightly beyond the schema alone, earning a 4.

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 queries an ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer via URL, with the specific verb 'Query' and a clear resource. It distinguishes from siblings like layer_info by specifying it returns attribute rows and geometry, and it connects to search_datasets as the source for URLs.

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?

It explicitly mentions the URL comes from search_datasets, providing a clear workflow context. It also gives a practical sampling tip (where='1=1' + out_fields='*') that guides when to use it for exploration. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, so it is slightly below a perfect score.

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