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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description's extra detail about returned items adds some value but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as error handling or rate limits.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that communicates the tool's purpose efficiently with no extraneous information.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not address error scenarios or output schema, but annotations compensate for safety. Slightly incomplete for edge 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds little beyond the input schema's parameter description. The tool description mentions 'by url' and gives an example, but the schema already provides a clear description and example.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema', and lists specific outputs: fields, geometry type, record count, and capabilities. Distinguishes from sibling 'query_layer' which likely queries data rather than schema.

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 implies usage for retrieving schema metadata but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_layer'. No exclusion or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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