env_methane

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It only mentions data source and purpose but fails to disclose whether the tool returns data immediately, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects exist. This is insufficient for a tool with no structural safety hints.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and ends with the data source, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits what the output looks like or how results are structured. Given the minimal complexity, a basic description of return type or format would enhance completeness. Currently, it's adequate but incomplete.

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% with lat and lng described as 'Latitude' and 'Longitude'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 checks for methane emission hotspots using Sentinel-5P TROPOMI data. The verb 'Check' and resource 'methane emission hotspots' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like env_air_pollution by focusing on methane and citing a specific satellite data source.

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 (e.g., env_air_pollution for general air quality). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer.

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