get_aggregations

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states a get operation but doesn't explain what aggregations are, whether any filtering is applied, performance implications, or that it is read-only. The single sentence provides minimal insight beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, short sentence that is direct and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, so the conciseness comes at the cost of clarity. The structure is fine, but the content is minimal.

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?

Although an output schema exists and may cover return values, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and no schema coverage. It does not explain the purpose of aggregations, how they relate to STAC items, or any constraints or edge cases, leaving the agent without critical context for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. There are 5 parameters (collections, bbox, query, datetime, catalog_url) with no explanation of their roles, formats, or how they affect the aggregations. The description offers no compensatory value.

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 uses a clear verb+resource structure ('Get aggregations for STAC items'), indicating a read operation on aggregated data. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_item or search_items, though it doesn't explicitly point out the distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_items or get_queryables. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which aggregations would be preferred.

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