submit_satellite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature by stating 'return an activity_id. Collect it with check_status,' which tells the agent this is a job-submission operation rather than a direct result fetch. It does not mention side effects, credits, or validation requirements, but the core behavioral contract is transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. 'Submit satellite land-cover segmentation for a point' is front-loaded and immediately states the action and resource, while the second sentence efficiently links to check_status. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the essential workflow—submit and poll via check_status—but omits context such as whether the point must be inside a previously validated AOI, how long processing might take, or any credit/cost implications. The schema covers parameter formats, so basic invocation is possible, but a fully informed agent would need more context.

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 83%, which is high, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only the notion of 'a point' (latitude/longitude) and provides no additional detail about optional parameters like filter_type, start_date, or granularity. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra semantic 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit satellite land-cover segmentation for a point.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling submission tools like submit_streetview and submit_heatmap through the 'satellite land-cover segmentation' resource. It also names the return artifact (activity_id), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 context: use this tool to submit satellite land-cover segmentation for a point, and then collect the result via check_status. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource type and follow-up instruction provide enough guidance for an agent to select it among siblings.

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