Search satellite imagery

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

The annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are newest first, and the return includes scene IDs, acquisition times, cloud cover, tile, and sources/checks/notes.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the main action first, then spatial input, dates, collection, cloud/limit, and return fields. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 usefully states what is returned and in what order. It also covers the key spatial and temporal parameters. Minor omissions such as explicit defaults, required-field restatement, or error behavior are already covered by the schema or are not critical for a read-only search 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 carry parameter meaning, and it does: bbox order and WGS84 units, point lon/lat, YYYY-MM-DD inclusive dates, allowed collection values, max_cloud as scene-level percent, and limit range 1-50. This meaningfully documents all eight parameters even though defaults and required fields remain visible in 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 gives a specific verb and resource: list satellite scenes covering a place and date range. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as ndvi_timeseries, land_cover, or elevation.

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?

Usage is implied by the search/list framing and the 'newest first' ordering, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling analysis tools or when not to use it. The description explains invocation shape more than selection criteria.

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