get_earth_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get information'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a parameter list with helpful details. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. A minor deduction because the parameter explanations could be integrated more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral context, and output details. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left guessing about the return format and operational constraints, making this adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all parameters: 'lat' and 'lon' are for location, 'date' specifies format (YYYY-MM-DD), and 'dim' explains units (degrees) and scale (0.025 degrees ≈ 2.7 km). This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't cover validation rules or optionality details.

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's purpose: 'Get information about available imagery assets for a specific location and date.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('imagery assets'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_earth_imagery' by focusing on asset metadata rather than imagery itself. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_earth_imagery' or explain scenarios where asset information is needed over actual imagery. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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