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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it 'Returns attribute rows (and geometry)' and suggests a sampling idiom, which gives useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions found.

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 that front-load the core action. Every phrase earns its place — the action, the parameter list, the return type, and the sampling tip. No redundant or marketing language.

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 (all documented in schema) and no output schema, but the description covers the return format (attribute rows and geometry) and provides a usage pattern. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but given the read-only, idempotent nature and the schema richness, it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by qualifying `where` as 'SQL-like', `out_fields` as 'comma-separated', and providing a concrete example of combining parameters for sampling. This goes beyond simply listing parameter names.

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 opens with 'Query an ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer by its url' — a specific verb and resource. It also references 'search_datasets' as the source of the URL, effectively distinguishing this query tool from sibling tools like layer_info or search_within. The list of query parameters further clarifies its 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 provides clear usage context: it is meant to query layers obtained from search_datasets, and the tip 'Use where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample' gives concrete guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context and sampling tip are sufficient for standard usage.

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