submit_heat_intelligence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the ~395 second latency, the async expectation, the short-lived signed URL that is never stored, and exactly how the PDF is retrieved and delivered. This is far beyond the schema's structural information.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: action/return, latency, collection workflow, and parameter constraint. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded before workflow details.

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?

For a six-parameter async submit tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full lifecycle: submission, latency, retrieval, result location, and parameter invariants. An agent has enough to call it correctly and know what to do afterward.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by stating that a temperature source is mandatory (temperature or from_activity_id, not both) even though neither is marked required in the schema. It also reinforces the complete-report requirement, though the schema already documents the five analysis categories.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: submit a heat intelligence report for a point, with an explicit return (activity_id). It also distinguishes the tool from its companion sibling by directing collection to check_status, so an agent can tell submission from retrieval.

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 gives clear operational guidance: never wait inline, collect via check_status, and provide exactly one of temperature or from_activity_id. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with the sibling submit_heatmap/satellite/streetview tools, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative coverage.

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