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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context, such as returning attribute rows and geometry, and the sampling trick. It does not contradict annotations and provides value beyond the structured fields.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, then listing parameters and a helpful tip. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, where URLs come from, and how to sample. It could detail return format further, but the note about returning attributes and geometry plus schema-covered parameters is enough for a list/query tool.

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 summarizes key parameters (where, out_fields, order_by, limit, offset) and mentions 'SQL-like', which adds slight nuance, but it largely mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 by URL, with a specific verb ('Query') and resource. It also lists the main parameters, making it distinct from sibling tools like 'layer_info' or 'search_datasets'. The mention of 'from search_datasets' establishes the data source and workflow.

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 provides clear context: it is used to query layers obtained from 'search_datasets', and gives a practical sampling tip ('Use where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample.'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide the agent.

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