stac_collections

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no authentication is required and that the operation is a plain listing, but says nothing about response shape, pagination, or whether the list is static or refreshed.

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 covering source, action and auth requirement, followed by two short example utterances. The trailing Args note is mildly redundant against an empty schema but harmless.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers origin, auth requirement and typical user phrasings. The one gap is that the agent cannot anticipate what fields each collection entry contains.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The 'Args: (なし)' note matches the empty schema and confirms the tool takes no filters, which is the only parameter-level fact an agent needs.

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+resource: listing satellite data collections from AWS Earth Search. Naming the source differentiates it from sibling collection-listers such as uk_stac_collections, copernicus_collections and inpe_collections, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 example Japanese queries ('AWS satellite data', 'available Landsat collections') imply when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit routing advice versus sibling collection tools or the stac_search search tool.

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