Get data availability per site and product

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: pre-request validation of product/policy pairs, enumeration of sites lacking data with reasons, and the policy obligations the selection must follow. It does not discuss pagination or result volume 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then edge cases, then the next step; little waste. The product/policy enumeration in the first sentence is compressed but readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required; the description still covers the important non-obvious behaviors (invalid pairs, missing-site reporting, policy obligations) and the workflow handoff. Only pagination/large-result behavior is left unaddressed.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description still adds meaning: it explains that policy filters to data usable under that policy versus the default of labelling each row with its own policy, and it frames products as tied to site collections. It leaves limit/offset and the year-window syntax to the schema.

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 names the exact resource and scope: published years per site for BASE-BADM, FLUXNET, FLUXNET2015, FLUXNET-CH4 and BIF membership, each row labelled with its data policy. It also states secondary outputs (sites without data and why, the governing policy), which cleanly separates it from siblings like amf_search_sites or amf_list_files.

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 gives a concrete follow-on step ("call amf_get_citation for these sites") and a precondition (invalid product/policy pairs fail before any request), which steers usage. It stops short of naming an alternative tool and when to prefer it, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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