query_nasa_opera

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format (JSON string with granules, asset URLs, coverage metadata) and describes what the tool does, but it does not mention pagination, error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It is read-only in nature but this is not explicitly stated, and the description lacks deeper behavioral detail that would be expected without annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Supported Products, Args, and Returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each section is concise, providing necessary detail without verbosity. The only minor excess is the repetition of '30m' in product descriptions, which is not wasted but could be considered slightly redundant.

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 (6 parameters, 3 product types, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It covers the product catalog, parameter semantics, and return type. The presence of an output schema means the description need not detail return values, but it still provides a high-level description of the return. Missing elements include any mention of authentication, rate limits, or data availability constraints, but these are minor for a query tool of this nature.

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 fully compensate. The description includes an explicit 'Args:' section that explains each of the six parameters (bbox, datetime_range, product_type, max_cloud_cover, limit, format) with clear meaning, units, and examples for datetime_range. This is comprehensive and adds substantial value beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 it searches and inspects NASA JPL OPERA datasets, and enumerates the three supported product types (dswx, dist, rtc) with their specific purposes. This is a specific verb+resource with a defined scope that distinguishes it from generic STAC search tools and other sibling detection tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stac_search or detect_water_sar. It lists the products it supports but does not mention exclusions or alternative conditions that would route an agent to a different tool. The usage context is only implicit from the product descriptions.

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