time_series

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: one scene per day, cloudy dates dropped with a reason, even sampling when dates exceed the server limit (default 24), and a 10-60 s latency expectation. Only the response's concrete field structure and failure modes are left unspecified, and an output schema exists.

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?

Three compact sentences, with the core definition front-loaded and the operational caveats (sampling limit, latency) following. No filler, though the sampling sentence is dense enough to require a second read.

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 read-only, open-world tool with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide and set expectations: temporal granularity, cloudy-date handling, result-count capping, and runtime. Return-value details are correctly deferred to the output schema.

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 bbox, index, catalog, date_range and max_cloud_cover are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only indirect meaning (cloudy dates are skipped, so max_cloud_cover affects sample count) and never explains the dates-sampling parameter interaction.

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 specific verb (mean of an index) over concrete resources (bbox, Sentinel-2 acquisition dates) with temporal scope, which cleanly separates it from compute_index (single computation) and search_scenes (scene listing). The output shape ('mean ... for each date') is stated in the first line.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated output shape – an agent can infer 'use this when you need a temporal profile rather than one value' – but no alternative tool (compute_index, search_scenes) is named and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The reader must infer when-to-use from siblings.

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