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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing what the tool returns ('attribute rows (and geometry)') and the supported query options (SQL-like where, pagination). This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting it, meriting a 4.

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 core purpose, and every clause earns its place. The first sentence states the action and parameters; the second provides a concise sampling tip. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the return type (attribute rows and geometry), the source of the URL (search_datasets), the key parameters, and a usage pattern. Given the annotations and full schema coverage, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the SQL-like nature of 'where', the comma-separated format for 'out_fields', and gives a concrete usage example. This practical guidance helps the agent select and combine parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer'), and states the input (url from search_datasets). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the SQL-like query capability and returning attribute rows with geometry, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 specifies that the URL should come from search_datasets and provides a practical sampling idiom ('where="1=1" + out_fields="*"'). This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, which prevents a 5.

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