list_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the tool returns vocabulary data with resolution and date coverage, and that results are locally cached unless refresh=True is set. It does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but for a simple read-only listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds return-value details and parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned and how to refresh cached data. It could also state whether authentication is required or what the default cache behavior means in practice, but these are minor omissions for this tool.

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 schema provides only a title and default for the refresh parameter, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by giving the exact semantic: 'Set refresh=True to bypass the local cache.' This tells the agent how the parameter affects behavior, which is the key information needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every satellite and sensor the Bhoonidhi portal supports.' It further clarifies the return value as the vocabulary of valid satellites, sensors, exact search tokens, resolution, and date coverage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_scenes or cart operations.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call this to discover what can be searched.' It also explains when to set refresh=True to bypass the local cache. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives or mention when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the distinction fairly clear.

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