submit_heatmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the asynchronous return behavior, the archive/cache behavior with from_archive and zero cost, and the local-timezone interpretation of start_time. It could add cost/rate or failure details, but the essential behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 information-dense and every sentence adds value: purpose, when-to-use, result collection, archive behavior, and parameter semantics. It front-loads the most important async behavior and remains readable despite covering several nuanced options.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotationns, and no output schema, the description covers the central return contract, filtering modes, optional parameters, and timezone handling. The main gaps are direction and threshold semantics and a bit more shape detail for polygon_aoi, but the tool remains usable with this definition.

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 high at 80%, and the description adds value by clarifying filter_type mapping to date/time fields, granularity omission behavior, analytic_type omission behavior, and local-timezone semantics. It does not explain direction or threshold, but those are optional and not heavily behooped.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: submit a temperature heatmap over an area, returning an activity_id immediately instead of waiting for completion. This distinguishes the tool from synchronous alternatives and clarifies its core purpose without ambiguity.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when you have other work to do, or for a large area.' It also directs the agent to collect results via check_status and explains the cached-result behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with create_heatmap or other submit tools, but the when-to-use criteria are clear.

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