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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context by noting that it returns attribute rows and geometry, and that the where clause is SQL-like (not full SQL), which informs agent expectations beyond 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, and the second offers a concrete usage tip. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity, strong annotations, and comprehensive schema, the description covers the essential return behavior (rows and geometry) and the provenance of URLs (from search_datasets). It omits only minor details like pagination limits, but those are in the schema and not critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the meaning of `where` as SQL-like and `out_fields` as comma-separated, but adds no substantive new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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/Map Service layer by URL, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by enumerating the SQL-like query parameters (where, out_fields, order_by, limit, offset) and mentions it is sourced from search_datasets, positioning it distinctly against layer_info and search_within.

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 for querying layers found via search_datasets, and includes a practical sampling tip (`where="1=1" + out_fields="*"`). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended workflow is implied well enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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