List NEON data releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, and the description adds value by disclosing that releases are immutable, carry per-product DOIs, newer data are PROVISIONAL, and manifest URLs expire (also in schema). No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose and ordering come first, key properties and caveats second, and the logical follow-up call last. Each clause adds information that helps selection or invocation.

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?

With a single optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool returns and how it relates to sibling tools. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and the schema describes it fully (include signed manifest URLs, large, expire in 7 days). The description mentions manifest artifacts, but the parameter semantics are carried by the schema, so the description adds no essential parameter-level detail beyond the baseline.

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 specific operation ('List NEON data releases'), states the scope ('All ... newest first'), and lists the key returned attributes (generation dates, product counts, manifest artifacts). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling neon_get_release, which covers one release's products and DOIs.

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 points the agent to the next appropriate tool ('Next: call neon_get_release for one release's products and DOIs'), making the boundary between list-all and get-one clear. The mention of immutability and provisional data also hints at when release metadata is stable.

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