eodashboard_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content and adds a genuinely useful behavioral rule — always surface the link because it is the only path in environments where images don't render — plus the effect of show_image. It says nothing about behavior when the identifier is not found (empty result vs. error), which matters for a fuzzy-matching lookup.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose, then examples, then args, then the output-handling note. Each block earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 correctly enumerates the returned fields and adds the link-presentation instruction, which an agent needs to use the result properly. Missing only failure/ambiguity handling for identifiers that match multiple datasets.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: identifier is explained with concrete examples ('N1_NO2', 'NO2_daily', 'sea_ice') and the fuzzy 'approximate names also work' behavior, and show_image is described with its default of True. Only the identifier format nuances (collection ID vs. display name precedence) remain unstated.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource: it returns the details of one EO Dashboard dataset, enumerating what those details contain (satellite, sensor, description, reference links, images). An agent can tell it apart from eodashboard_collections by the singular '1つのデータセット' scope, but the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Two example queries ('NO2データセットの詳細', 'EO Dashboardの海面水温の情報') imply the trigger context well. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no pointer to eodashboard_collections for the browse/list case, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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