state_gis_query

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable context by disclosing support for attribute and spatial queries with SQL-like where clauses, and by flagging that not all states have GIS services. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: first states core function, second elaborates query capabilities, third points to discovery, fourth warns about state coverage. No redundant wording or padding.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow (discover, check state, query) but omits details about return format, pagination via limit, or handling of the geometry parameter. The reference to sibling tools partially compensates for this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter understanding by linking 'where' to SQL-like clauses and explaining that service and layer_id can be discovered via state_gis_services. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Query any ArcGIS REST service layer for a US state', which clearly states the verb (query), resource (ArcGIS REST service layer), and scope (US state). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing state_gis_services for discovery, making the tool's specific role obvious.

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 provides actionable guidance: use state_gis_services to discover services and layer IDs, and use state_list to check whether a state has GIS services. This covers prerequisites but stops short of explicitly contrasting with other query tools like state_gis_parcels or stating when NOT to use this tool.

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