Search all items across the caller's organization (STAC-compatible).

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating STAC-compliance. It does not disclose other traits like pagination behavior, result structure, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation gaps in safety, the description contributes little.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it simply echoes the title. While brevity is positive, it lacks structure and fails to front-load key operational details. The single sentence does not justify its space by adding value beyond the title.

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 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description is severely incomplete. It omits details on filtering, pagination (limit, offset), result format, and expected behavior. The output schema exists but the description does not guide the agent on how to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the description provides no explanation of any parameter. Despite having many parameters (bbox, collections, datetime, etc.), the description does not compensate, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone. This is a critical gap.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, or any reference to sibling tools. The description lacks usage context, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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