get_earth_imagery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'cloud_score' is 'currently not available,' which is useful context about a limitation. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., image format, size, metadata), error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a labeled 'Args:' section. Each parameter explanation is concise and informative. The only minor inefficiency is repeating 'Image' in the date parameter description, but overall it's appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It excels at parameter semantics but lacks information about return values, error handling, and usage context relative to siblings. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns, but it doesn't. This leaves the agent uncertain about the output format.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what each parameter means: 'lat' and 'lon' as coordinates, 'date' format and default behavior, 'dim' as width/height in degrees with a real-world conversion (2.7 km), and 'cloud_score' functionality and current limitation. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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's purpose: 'Get Earth imagery from Landsat 8 satellite.' It specifies the resource (Earth imagery) and source (Landsat 8 satellite). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_earth_assets' or 'get_epic_imagery', which might also provide Earth imagery from different sources or with different characteristics.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_earth_assets' and 'get_epic_imagery' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred. The only usage context is implicit through parameter descriptions.

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