query_features

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read and that the result is capped at 1,000 records, but it does not mention what happens when more records match, whether pagination is supported, required permissions, or return format. These omissions leave notable behavioral ambiguity for a no-annotation tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and maximum limit, followed by the optional filter and field list. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is only partially complete. It covers the essential read behavior and key parameters, but it lacks information about defaults, error handling, response contents, and behavior when the 1,000-record cap is exceeded.

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?

The schema provides only titles for parameters, so the description adds meaningful semantics: 'ArcGIS SQL filter' explains the nature of 'where_clause', 'field list' clarifies 'fields', and 'up to 1,000 records' gives practical meaning to 'limit'. The dataset parameter is implicit, but the description covers most of the semantically important details.

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 a specific action ('Read'), a resource ('records from a dataset'), and key constraints ('up to 1,000 records', 'ArcGIS SQL filter and field list'). It is distinct from sibling names like 'export_features_to_pdf' and 'run_advanced_geoprocessing', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar search/query siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_features' or 'export_features_to_pdf'. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'Read'.

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