cnes_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns reachability status plus a summary — useful signal that this is a lightweight read — but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or what the status values mean (e.g., whether 'unreachable' is a normal outcome). Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short lines: the core purpose first, then example invocations. No filler, nothing redundant, and the identity of the portal (THEIA / GEODES) is front-loaded for disambiguation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value itself, and '到達状態と概要' is left vague — an agent cannot anticipate whether it gets a boolean, a status code, a list of collections, or a prose summary. For a zero-param status tool this is mostly sufficient, but the unspecified return shape leaves a real gap.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the schema description coverage of 100% is trivially satisfied.

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 states a specific verb (返す / returns) and a clearly bounded resource: the reachability status and overview of France's CNES Earth observation portal (THEIA / GEODES). It is unmistakably a status/overview tool rather than a search tool, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like cnsa_status or jaxa_datasets.

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 Japanese example queries (「フランスのCNES衛星データ」「THEIAポータル」) imply the kind of user intent this tool serves, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for actual data search (e.g., stac_search or copernicus_search). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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