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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that the tool returns attribute rows and geometry, and explains the SQL-like where clause behavior, including pagination via limit and offset. This goes beyond annotations to clarify operational details and data returned.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then succinctly list parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. The sample usage is efficiently integrated.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return type (attribute rows and geometry), key parameters, and source. It mentions the URL comes from search_datasets. It might benefit from noting default limit behavior, but the schema provides that detail. Overall, it is complete enough for an AI agent to understand the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it describes the SQL-like nature of the where clause, the formatting of out_fields and order_by, and provides a concrete example of how to sample data. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's property 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 Service or Map Service layer by URL, specifying parameters like SQL-like where, out_fields, order_by, limit, offset. It distinguishes itself by referencing 'from search_datasets', linking to a related tool. The verb 'Query' and resource description are specific and 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?

The description provides clear context that the tool is used for querying a layer from an ArcGIS service, with a sample usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like layer_info or search_within, nor does it provide exclusions. The recommendation to use where='1=1' and out_fields='*' for sampling is helpful but not a full usage guide.

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