query_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the output CRS (WGS84), the pagination pattern via exceededTransferLimit and offset, and the source capability prerequisite. It does not deeply discuss errors or side effects, but the query nature makes those less critical.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose and output, second sentence lists capabilities, third gives pagination guidance, fourth gives source constraint. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or fluff.

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 9-parameter complexity, the description covers the essential behaviors: filtering, output format, coordinate system, pagination, and capability prerequisite. The output schema exists and can carry return-value details. Minor gaps remain around limit semantics and return_geometry behavior, but overall context is solid.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains several parameters: where (SQL), out_fields ('field selection'), order_by ('ordering'), bbox (with coordinate format), and offset (pagination). It does not detail limit or return_geometry, but covers the most important semantics.

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 states a specific operation ('Query layer attributes'), the output format ('GeoJSON in WGS84'), and core controls (where, field selection, ordering, bbox). It clearly differentiates this from sibling metadata/rendering tools such as describe_layer and export_map by focusing on data-retrieval semantics.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: querying layer data with SQL-like filtering, bbox, and pagination. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or say 'use X instead', but the intended use case is strongly implied by the capability constraint 'Only sources that declare the query capability'.

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