aoi_imagery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that Maxar is event-gated (only where a disaster/conflict covers the AOI), that Sentinel is global at any date, that scenes are downloaded to a temp dir and discarded, and that `best_source` arbitrates between them. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and what happens when neither source covers the AOI.

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?

Structure is strong — a return-value sentence first, then an Args block keyed to the actual parameter names, with zero filler. The lead line ('set time + place directly') is slightly throwaway, but the rest is dense 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers both source behavior and every input. What remains missing for a 10-parameter, unannotated tool is the failure mode (no imagery in window) and any cost or latency expectation.

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, and it largely does: date format YYYY-MM-DD, the lat/lon/radius_km alternative to an explicit bbox, the fact that min/max bbox overrides lat/lon, and that window_days widens the Maxar search. It leaves the `radius_km` default of 5 and the interaction when only partial bbox values are supplied unstated.

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 names a specific action (report imagery availability for an AOI at two dates) and enumerates the two source families (Maxar Open Data VHR, Sentinel) plus the `best_source` discriminator. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like `sar_scenes` or `esri_wayback`.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the repeated emphasis on 'WITHOUT downloading' and 'nothing is stored' signals this is the discovery step before a separate reconstruction/download call. But no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so the agent must infer the routing from the other 90+ tool names.

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