state_gis_boundaries

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

With readOnlyHint annotation already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: layer IDs are state-dependent, output may include multiple boundary types, and the tool queries ArcGIS. This goes beyond a bare read-only declaration and helps set expectations for data variability.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The state-specific caveat and pointer to sibling are packed into the second sentence, keeping the description efficient and structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it queries, possible data types, and state-dependent layer IDs. It doesn't describe response format or error behavior, but those could be inferred from the query nature and the pointer to state_gis_services.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema by explaining that layer_id varies by state and the appropriate way to discover it (use state_gis_services). This gives the agent essential context for correctly parameterizing the call.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Query political boundaries for a US state via ArcGIS.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like state_gis_parcels (parcels) and state_gis_services (service discovery). Adding the likely content types (counties, municipalities, districts) further clarifies scope.

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?

It provides clear context for use (querying political boundaries) and gives actionable guidance: 'Layer IDs vary by state — use state_gis_services to check available layers.' This points to a specific sibling for a prerequisite step. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to infer.

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