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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns attribute rows and geometry, and recommends a sampling pattern. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but annotations lower the bar.

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 a single, information-dense sentence plus one practical tip. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and contains no filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a query tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, URL source, and return content (rows and geometry). It also gives a concrete usage example. Missing details like pagination nuances or error handling are partially covered by the schema's offset description, so it is reasonably complete.

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%, with each parameter described in the input schema. The description repeats parameter names and adds phrases like 'SQL-like' and 'comma-separated', but those details are also present in the schema. It provides no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 action ('Query') and the resource ('ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer'), specifies the URL source ('from search_datasets'), and lists key parameters (where, out_fields, order_by, limit, offset) and output (attribute rows and geometry). This distinguishes it from siblings like layer_info or search_datasets.

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?

Guidance is implied by instructing to use a URL from search_datasets and by suggesting a sampling technique. This provides clear context for when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls 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.