planet_stats

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

The description only mentions the API key requirement. With no annotations, additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data freshness, error handling) are missing. The agent is left uninformed about important traits.

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?

Two sentences with 10 words. Highly efficient and front-loaded. However, it could benefit from a brief note on output format or parameter usage without losing conciseness.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'coverage statistics' entails (e.g., temporal resolution, data types), nor how to interpret the interval parameter. Sibling diversity increases need for completeness.

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 adds no extra meaning beyond 'for an area' and does not clarify how parameters like interval affect the result. Schema already provides sufficient descriptions.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('Planet imagery coverage statistics') for a specific area. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like planet_search (search scenes) and planet_metadata (get metadata) by specifying 'coverage statistics'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is the requirement for PLANET_API_KEY, but no when-not-to-use or comparisons to siblings.

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