seismic_source_import

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, the description still adds meaningful context: it is async and returns job_id, works by streaming rather than uploading, and applies hard format limits (no amplitude downsampling, IBM/IEEE float32 only). It does not mention idempotency_key semantics or failure modes, which would be the next step.

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?

Four compact clauses, each carrying a distinct fact (mechanism, data constraints, mapping requirements, return value), with the core action front-loaded. It is telegraphic but nothing is wasted.

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 nested-argument import tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision inputs: what is accepted, what is rejected, and that a job_id (not data) is returned. Remaining gaps, such as how to poll the job, live in sibling tools like job_status.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that CRS/datum/units/header mapping must be explicit and pinned, which is useful framing, but it adds no syntax or per-parameter detail beyond the schema, including the nested execution policy block.

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?

States a concrete verb chain (stream a SEG-Y into Zarr tiles) with the resource and the key differentiator from a normal upload ('bypassing upload limits'), which implicitly separates it from source_upload. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling seismic_import, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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?

'Bypassing upload limits' implies when this is chosen over an upload path, and the constraints (sorted regular zero-offset poststack, float32 only, no downsampling) define applicability. However, there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling (seismic_import, dataset_import, geodata_import) handles the excluded cases.

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