situational_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns a structured plan and does not perform actual data fetching (Pro-tier). However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific authentication (api_key parameter is listed but not explained). The disclosure is not complete, but it provides some useful behavioral context.

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 concise (three sentences) and effectively front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second lists input variations, third describes output and a limitation. There is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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 has an output schema (so return values are defined elsewhere) but schema coverage is 0% and no annotations exist, the description partially compensates by explaining the output conceptually. However, it fails to specify that bbox and aoi_name are mutually exclusive, does not detail the exact format of the bound box, and does not explain the meaning of all parameters. The description is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent to fully use the tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'query' is natural language and describes the optionally alternatives of 'bbox' (with format minLon,minLat,maxLon,maxLat) and 'aoi_name'. However, it does not clarify 'time_window', 'preferred_sources', or 'api_key', leaving gaps in understanding those parameters.

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: to plan a geospatial situational-awareness query. It specifies the inputs (natural-language query plus bbox or aoi_name) and outputs (structured plan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like care_membrane_policy or list_data_sources, which have different functions.

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 explains how to use the tool (provide query and either bbox or aoi_name) and notes that tile fetching is a Pro-tier feature. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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