Area summary

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the scene-selection rule (most recent Sentinel-2 scene within days_back with ≥60% clear) and the hard 25 km² area cap. It doesn't say what happens when no scene meets the 60% threshold, which is the main residual gap.

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?

A single dense sentence with no wasted clauses: the output content, the area limit, and the scene-selection criteria are all front-loaded and each phrase earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description does its job by enumerating the returned metrics and their temporal basis. Minor gaps remain on units (elevation/slope) and the shape of the land-cover shares, but an agent can call this correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameters. It does specify the bbox ordering as [west, south, east, north] and the days_back range 15–365, which is genuinely useful, but it omits the bbox coordinate units (presumably degrees) and doesn't restate the default of 90.

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?

States a specific composite deliverable — land-cover shares, elevation/slope stats, and NDVI — for a bounded box, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools (land_cover, elevation, ndvi_timeseries), though the word 'Quick report' and the area cap imply the composite route.

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 25 km² maximum and the days_back range imply when the tool is appropriate (small areas, recent imagery), but the description never says when to prefer it over the sibling layers or what to do for larger areas. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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