submit_streetview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals the asynchronous pattern: the tool returns an activity_id rather than a direct result, and the result must later be collected via check_status. This is a key operational trait that an agent needs to know. It does not mention cost, permissions, or failure modes, but the core submit-then-poll behavior is transparently conveyed.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundant wording. The primary action and output are front-loaded, and the follow-up instruction to use check_status is short and direct. Every word adds value.

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 submit-style asynchronous tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and how to retrieve the eventual result. All required parameters are fully documented in the schema. A minor gap is the lack of any mention of whether this operation consumes credits or requires a valid AOI, but the core invocation flow is complete.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptive text, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context that the parameters describe a street-view point and scene analysis, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy documentation but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Submit street-view scene analysis') applied to a resource ('a point') and the expected output ('return an activity_id'). It clearly identifies that this is the street-view variant among sibling submit tools like submit_satellite and submit_heatmap, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 usage context: submit analysis, get an activity_id, then collect with check_status. It does not explicitly enumerate when to choose this over submit_satellite or submit_heatmap, but the resource type is implicit in the name and description, providing adequate direction. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated, so an agent must infer modality from the tool name.

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