landsat_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves scene availability; it does not mention whether the output is a list of years, any constraints like cloud cover, or whether the data is cumulative from 1972. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that is extremely concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word adds value, with no extraneous details. It is appropriately sized and structured.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'scene availability' means (e.g., a timeline of dates, counts per year), how to interpret the output, or any constraints like start_year must be 1972 or later. A more complete description would include the expected return structure and any limitations.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'for a location,' which is already covered by the required lat/lng parameters. 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 states the tool gets Landsat scene availability for a location, with historical coverage since 1972. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like landsat_search (which searches for specific scenes) and landsat_latest (which returns the most recent scenes). The verb 'Get' and resource 'Landsat scene availability' are specific and informative.

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 implies usage for checking historical coverage at a location, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as landsat_search or sentinel_timeline. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned. The usage context is clear but guidance on alternatives is missing.

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