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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful interpretive context: a thermal anomaly only means a site read hotter than its own normal and never what caused it, and a view is not evidence of damage. It doesn't cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, but the caveats about data meaning are genuinely valuable beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and then systematically covers list mode, detail mode, and interpretation caveats. The sentences are long and dense, verging on run-on, but each clause carries substantive information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return payloads — and it does thoroughly: last thermal anomaly, latest dated Sentinel-2 view, weekly radar vessel counts, anomalies with before/after views, 90 days of FIRMS readings, and occupancy against normal. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents id, kind, and country with examples and the enum. The description reinforces the id semantics ('one site in full') and implies kind/country filtering but adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource — named energy sites and ports (refineries, terminals, LNG plants, depots) tracked from orbit — and contrasts the two access modes (list-all vs. single-site detail). It never explicitly names or routes against the sibling tools (geo_activity, geo_series, geo_snapshot, etc.), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clearly explains when each mode applies: 'Without id, every site...' versus 'With id, one site in full,' and notes the id must come from a previous answer. This is strong conditional usage guidance, but it offers no alternatives or exclusions relative to the sibling tools.

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