Locator Info

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: the locator is local and controlled, and no billing service is contacted. That is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express. It says nothing about error behavior for an invalid path, hence not a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the no-billing caveat trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the one thing the description must carry at 0% schema coverage: what a valid locator_path looks like. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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% — locator_path has no description in the schema — and the description likewise never explains the parameter's expected form (a .loc file path, a folder, a URL). With a low-coverage single parameter, the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (受控本地 locator) and enumerates what is retrieved: capabilities, address fields, output fields, spatial reference. An agent can tell this apart from generic describe/info siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer, so it doesn't reach 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 不访问计费服务 implies a no-cost, local-only context, but the description never names an alternative (e.g. arcgis_pro_describe or arcgis_pro_geocode_addresses) or the condition that selects this tool over them.

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