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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects, and it does: it writes the perception chain to Spatial Memory and drops a signed audit breadcrumb. It also reveals that it sends data to a RunPod endpoint and lists the returned fields. However, it omits details about failure behavior, permissions, or whether the memory write can be disabled beyond the parameter default.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place: what it does, what it returns, and what side effects it has. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

The description covers the essential prerequisites, processing location (RunPod), return fields, and side effects. Since there is no output schema, it reasonably enumerates the main return values, though it leaves the structure of 'perception_chain' unspecified and does not discuss error conditions. Still, it provides a solid operational picture for a moderately complex tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces that tile_id must come from a prior fetch and that the chain is written to memory. No compensation needed since the schema already documents each parameter's purpose.

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 a specific, actionable verb: "Run Prithvi-EO-2.0-300M-TL-Sen1Floods11 flood classification on a Sentinel-2 tile previously fetched by perception_fetch_tile." It clearly identifies the resource (Sentinel-2 tile), the operation (classification), and distinguishes it from siblings like perception_fetch_tile and perception_embed.

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 tool explicitly states it operates on a tile 'previously fetched by perception_fetch_tile', which establishes a required sequencing precondition. It does not explicitly enumerate when to avoid using it or name alternative tools for other tasks, but the prerequisite and domain are clearly implied.

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