env_deforestation

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

The description does not disclose behavioral details beyond the basic retrieval action. With no annotations, it fails to specify output format, pagination, real-time nature, or edge cases (e.g., empty results). However, the tool is simple, so this is minimally adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the gist. However, it lacks details on output format, date range limits (days max 365 not stated), and potential data freshness. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds 'near a coordinate' and 'recent' which weakly relate to lat/lng and days, but does not add substantive new meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves deforestation alerts (GLAD) near a coordinate, specifying the data source (GLAD) and the subject (deforestation, tree cover loss). It is distinct from sibling tools like env_fire_risk or change_vegetation.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The name and description imply usage for deforestation alerts, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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