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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds that it 'Returns attribute rows (and geometry)', which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential error conditions or pagination behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first front-loads the core function and key parameters, and the second gives a practical sampling tip. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main parameters, return type ('attribute rows (and geometry)'), and usage context. It lacks details on error handling or response structure, but the core functionality is well explained. Sufficient for a non-destructive query tool with strong annotations.

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 goes beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between parameters and providing a concrete usage pattern ('where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample'). This adds practical meaning beyond the individual field descriptions.

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, specifying the resource type and source (search_datasets). It distinguishes from siblings like search_datasets and layer_info by focusing on data retrieval. The verb 'Query' and specific parameter list make the purpose 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 explicitly ties usage to search_datasets ('by its url (from search_datasets)'), implying a workflow. It also gives a specific sampling tip ('Use where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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