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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It describes the return structure in detail (CSV columns, format for bbox/temporal/keywords) and notes token efficiency. No contradictions; transparent about read-only listing.

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?

Description is structured into paragraphs with Args/Returns sections. All sentences add value, though slightly verbose in explaining output format. Front-loaded with main purpose; could be trimmed slightly but remains clear.

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 existing output schema, the description covers selection criteria (what collections are) and invocation (format options). Leaves out details for JSON/TOON responses, but output schema presumably fills the gap.

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 single parameter 'output_format' is fully explained with enum values, default, and trade-offs (e.g., '~20% fewer tokens than TOON'). Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates excellently, making the parameter easy to choose.

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 specifies 'list all available AQUAVIEW data collections' and details the returned fields (ID, title, spatial/temporal extent, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_item and search_datasets by focusing on enumeration of sources.

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?

Provides guidance on using collection IDs to filter searches and advises on output_format selection (e.g., 'Use json for deterministic/structured consumers'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but offers sufficient context for common use cases.

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