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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return type ('attribute rows (and geometry)') and the SQL-like query nature. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 action and resource, and every clause earns its place. It conveys the core functionality, a usage pattern, and a sampling tip without any fluff.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (query layer by URL, return rows/geometry) and links to search_datasets. While it does not detail pagination or error handling, the schema already documents `offset` and `limit`, making the description sufficiently complete for an agent to start using 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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a convenient usage pattern for `where` and `out_fields`, but it does not clarify individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already contains. The added value is marginal.

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 ('Query') and a specific resource ('ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like layer_info (metadata) and search_within (spatial). It also specifies the source ('from search_datasets'), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 implies a workflow by referencing 'from search_datasets' and gives a practical sampling tip ('Use where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample'). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool in favor of siblings like layer_info or search_within, leaving room for clearer guidance.

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