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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds that the tool returns attribute rows and geometry, which is useful, and mentions it works on both Feature and Map services. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits – acceptable given the annotations but not richly detailed.

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 core purpose and the key sampling hint are front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: where to get the URL, how to construct the query, and what it returns (attribute rows and geometry). It doesn't elaborate on edge cases like large result sets or pagination, but given the annotations and schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 covers all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds marginal value. It does explain the 'where'/'out_fields' syntax and the sampling use case, which supplements the schema descriptions, but most semantics are already present in the input schema.

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?

Describes a specific operation (query an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer) with a clear resource type and a pointer to the source of the URL (search_datasets). The verb 'query' and the layer scope distinguish it from sibling discovery tools like search_datasets and layer_info.

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?

Explicitly says the URL comes from search_datasets, guiding the correct input acquisition. Also provides a concrete sampling pattern (where='1=1' + out_fields='*') that tells the agent a common way to use it. Does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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