preview_download

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: no login is used, nothing is downloaded, per-scene prediction statuses are enumerated, and important limitations are surfaced (file sizes unknown until download starts, interrupted downloads cannot be resumed). This goes well beyond the minimum expected.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and stays organized: scope, argument relationship, status categories, usage recommendation, and caveats. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the prediction statuses and disclaimers sufficiently for an agent to know what the tool returns and what limitations apply. It also covers login behavior, download behavior, and how this tool fits into the download workflow, making it complete for a 14-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains out_dir and force, and references 'same arguments as search_scenes' for the rest, which adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, individual search parameters like lat, minx, sensor, and product are not described here, relying on the sibling tool's definition.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Dry-run a download for a search,' which immediately distinguishes it from the actual download tools. It also clarifies it shares arguments with search_scenes, further disambiguating it from siblings like download_query or search_scenes.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this before telling a user to download, so they know how many scenes are actually fetchable.' It also contrasts itself with a real download by noting 'Nothing is downloaded and no login is used,' and references search_scenes for argument compatibility.

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