quick_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention performance implications, error handling, data limits, or side effects. For example, it is silent on whether the polygon must be simple, what happens if the scene_id is invalid, or if the tool modifies data.

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 a single concise sentence of 8 words, which is efficient but overly terse given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core action, but could add essential parameter details without losing conciseness. It is acceptable but not optimally balanced.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required), a nested object, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return structure, the role of the polygon and scene_id, the default index, or the 'all_touched' flag. Although an output schema exists, the description should provide enough context to understand the tool's scope and usage, which it fails to do.

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 schema has 0% documentation coverage (no descriptions in the schema properties), so the description must compensate. However, it adds no meaning beyond the parameter names: it does not explain what 'polygon' (expected format), 'scene_id' (identifier meaning), 'index_name' (valid values beyond NDVI), or 'all_touched' (behavior) entail. The description fails to provide any parameter semantics.

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 states the tool returns zonal index statistics within a WGS84 GeoJSON polygon. The verb 'Return' and resource 'zonal index statistics' are specific, and the scope distinguishes it from siblings like 'scene_quality' (quality metrics) and 'compute_index' (index computation).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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