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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/no-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'Keyless' (no auth credential required) and the fact that the response includes both a STAC record and the retrieval request form.

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 core purpose and the id example, then the payoff. Slightly long with emphatic caps and a long field enumeration, but each clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so adequately (STAC record fields plus request form contents). An agent knows what it will get back and why, though it does not mention response size/pagination.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining what 'the request form' actually contains (variables, years, months, pressure levels, area, output formats), giving semantic meaning to include_form beyond its schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and explicitly scopes to ONE collection by id, with a concrete example id. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling cds_collections (list) tool.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing directive: 'Call this before cds_submit_request to learn what the dataset actually accepts', which names the alternative/downstream tool and the condition that motivates this call.

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