inpe_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses no auth requirement, the return shape (display summary in content, JSON with id/日時/bbox/雲量 in structuredContent), the default limit 5 with max 10, that omitted datetime means latest, and that max_cloud_cover only applies when eo:cloud_cover exists. It omits error/pagination/rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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-loads purpose and the no-auth constraint, follows with two illustrative examples and the return-shape note, then a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information about routing, format, or defaults; nothing is filler.

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?

For a 5-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool the description is nearly self-sufficient: params, defaults, return shape, and auth are covered. The remaining gap is routing against the numerous other STAC/imagery siblings, which is only implicitly handled via the INPE framing.

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 compensate, and it does: it documents all five parameters with format and defaults — bbox as "lon_min,lat_min,lon_max,lat_max", datetime as "YYYY-MM-DD" or "start/end" with latest fallback, collection default with a pointer to inpe_collections, max_cloud_cover as % conditional on the field, and limit default/max.

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 verb (検索) and a specific resource (ブラジルINPEの衛星画像 via STAC), and names the concrete satellite families (CBERS, Amazonia-1, GOES). This clearly separates it from the many other STAC/imagery siblings such as copernicus_search, uk_stac_search, and generic stac_search.

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?

Gives concrete example queries ("ブラジルのCBERS衛星画像", "サンパウロ周辺の最近の衛星画像"), states that no authentication is required, and routes the agent to inpe_collections for valid collection IDs. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance against neighboring search tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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