compare_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the scene selection strategy (same MGRS tile), computation of expression stats, and output (scenes, means, delta, map_path). It does not mention side effects like file creation but sufficiently describes core behavior.

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 compact with a summary line followed by elaboration. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no redundant sentences, making it efficient for an agent.

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's complexity (7 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main workflow, output structure, and defaults. It misses edge cases but is adequate for typical usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the RFC3339 format for windows, defaults, and expression default. It adds context about SAME MGRS tile selection and algorithm, though does not detail each parameter individually.

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 compares two time windows over a place and returns matched scenes, index delta, and a swipe map. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like compute_statistics which likely handles single windows.

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 positions this as solving 'what changed?' and provides default window behaviors, implying use for change detection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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