get_queryables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic function and implies a read-only action through 'Get', but it does not mention error behavior, collection existence requirements, the nature of the returned queryables, or how the optional catalog_url is used.

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, compact sentence that gets straight to the point. It has no filler or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action.

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 values need not be described. However, the description omits the optional catalog_url parameter and does not address the array-vs-singular ambiguity in collection_id. For a low-complexity tool this is minimally adequate, but it leaves clear gaps in parameter understanding.

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 only partially compensates. It clarifies that collection_id identifies the collection, but the schema declares it as an array of strings while the description says 'specific collection' (singular), creating ambiguity. The optional catalog_url parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unexplained.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('queryable properties') scoped to a specific STAC collection by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_collection, search_items, or search_collections, which deal with different resources or operations.

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 makes the context clear: use this tool when you need queryable properties for one named collection. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the phrasing provide enough situational guidance for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.

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