Raster Focal Statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a faint behavioral note (it verifies the newly written output), and says nothing about what gets created, overwritten, or required permissions. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this modest addition justifies a 2.

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 short front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient compression, and nothing about the operation's result or scope is stated.

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?

Output schema existence means return values need not be explained, but 7 undocumented parameters, no annotation-level guidance about the write, and no usage context leave major gaps. The description is not sufficient on its own to invoke this tool correctly beyond the two required paths.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, but it only echoes two parameter names (neighborhood, statistics type) without explaining accepted values, units, or the meaning of percentile_value, ignore_nodata, or environment. No compensating detail is provided.

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 names a specific verb (run) and a specific named geoprocessing operation (Focal Statistics), plus the two levers it uses: a constrained neighborhood and a statistics type. That is enough for an agent to know what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the many raster siblings such as raster_cell_statistics, raster_con, or raster_calculate_statistics, so it cannot 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase about neighborhood and statistics type describes inputs rather than conditions for choosing this tool over its raster siblings. An agent has to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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