search_imagery

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds important behavioral details: returns minimal metadata (id, datetime, footprint, cloud cover, platform, preview) but not imagery bytes, and costs 2 tokens per call. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 covering purpose, return value, and cost. It is front-loaded with the main action and requires no extraneous words.

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?

The description covers purpose, return format, cost, and usage context. It lacks details on pagination or error handling but is sufficient for a search tool with good schema/annotations. No output schema exists, so the explicit return fields are helpful.

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 description doesn't need to add much. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides. The cost mention is not parameter-specific. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: searching satellite imagery catalogs (Sentinel-1/2, OPERA RTC-S1) by area and date window. It differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., query_signals) by specifying it returns imagery metadata and being the natural follow-up to a signal.

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 explicitly frames this tool as 'the natural follow-up to a signal', providing clear context for when to use it. While it doesn't list explicit when-not or alternative tools, the usage hint is strong and distinguishes its role.

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