Da Query Rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a generic statement about structured results and a vague capability-dependent restriction, without useful behavioral detail such as pagination, row limits, or where-clause behavior.

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 brief but not informative; its few clauses largely repeat the title and name rather than earning their place. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Given seven parameters, two required inputs, 0% schema description coverage, and a complex ArcGIS Pro data-access context, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine expected argument formats, query semantics, or how this tool differs from nearby query and table tools.

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 description coverage is 0% across seven parameters, including required dataset_path and fields, yet the description provides no parameter meaning at all. It does not compensate for the schema gap or explain fields, where_clause, offset, max_rows, order_by, or include_shape_wkt.

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 mostly restates the tool name ('查询da query rows') without adding a specific verb-and-resource distinction beyond what the name already conveys. '返回可验证的结构化结果' is generic and does not separate it from siblings such as da_table_sample, da_distinct_values, or gp_table_select.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about write and path restrictions being subject to service capabilities is vague and does not tell an agent which sibling or workflow this tool belongs to.

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