ground-motion

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

Discloses cost ($0.40), free conditions, data source (NASA OPERA Sentinel-1), units, and dry_run behavior. Consistent with readOnlyHint annotation. No contradictions.

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?

Single dense paragraph with front-loaded purpose, then cost, free conditions, and usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and earned.

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?

Covers core function, data source, cost, free scenarios, and gate params. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Complete for a complex tool with 9 parameters.

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 78%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds context about dry_run being a free preview and gate params for cost avoidance, but does not add significant meaning beyond schema for individual parameters.

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 that it measures ground motion from NASA OPERA Sentinel-1 InSAR for US addresses or lat/lon, specifying units. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_motion_history by being a single-point check with cost implications, though not explicitly comparing.

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?

Explicit guidance on using dry_run for free preview and gate params to avoid paying for rejectable data. Describes free scenarios (out-of-coverage, stale, low-confidence, fuzzy-geocode). Does not explicitly list when to use alternatives among siblings, but provides clear usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses billing behavior (only covered addresses billed, misses/duplicates free). However, it does not describe output format, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose, second adds key billing detail. No wasted words, front-loaded with action.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers core purpose, scope (batch US addresses), and billing. Missing details like output format are partially acceptable given simplicity, but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema already documents the 'addresses' parameter (up to 1000 US addresses) at 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond 'batch ground-motion', so it meets baseline.

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 verb 'batch ground-motion' and the resource 'many US addresses', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_ground_motion' by implying batch vs. single address. The billing detail adds specificity.

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 implies use when you have many US addresses, and mentions billing for covered vs. non-covered addresses, which guides cost-aware usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or mention when not to use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only lists return values and mentions 'FREE' (likely indicating no cost), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, and front-loads the key term 'FREE'. Could be slightly more structured but effectively concise.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return values adequately. However, it lacks detail on format or units (e.g., currency for balance), leaving some ambiguity. Contextually sufficient for a simple tool but not complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what information is returned (balance, price, reports, URL), beyond the empty schema.

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 tool returns account information (credit balance, price per report, reports remaining, top-up URL). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with ground motion, portfolio, coverage, and motion history.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking account details, but no when-not or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the tool is FREE and returns data_age_days and report cost, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or side effects. It adds value beyond the name but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy 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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and output concepts but lacks details on how to specify location (parameter choice) and the exact output structure (e.g., boolean for coverage). Adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, but the description adds context that parameters represent a US location (lat/lon or address). It does not explain individual parameter usage, whether parameters are alternatives or required, or their format. Partial compensation for lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool checks if a US address/point is covered, indicates data staleness in days, and provides report cost. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_ground_motion or get_account by specifying a pre-flight coverage check before spending.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before spending,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies a preliminary step but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals cost but omits critical details: data freshness, required permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid address), or output format. Lacks depth for a paid tool.

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: purpose then usage+cost. No unnecessary words, directly addresses key information.

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?

Despite low schema coverage and no output schema, the description fails to explain all parameters, required combinations, or expected return data. Incomplete for effective invocation.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description only explains from_date and to_date format (YYYY-MM-DD). Parameters lat, lon, and address are left undefined, leaving the agent guessing their role.

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?

Clearly states it provides 'multi-year cumulative motion history for an address' by specifying a date range. Distinguishes from siblings like 'check_ground_motion' by focusing on historical cumulative motion.

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?

Mentions how to use (pass from_date and to_date) and cost, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_ground_motion. No exclusion or conditional logic.

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