uk_stac_search

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 the public catalog requires no authentication and that datetime is omitted => latest, but says nothing about the read-only nature, rate limits, or what a result record looks like, leaving the agent to guess at output shape.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by two short example queries, then a compact Args block. Nothing is redundant, though the examples duplicate information already conveyed by the purpose statement.

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, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs well but leaves the return value entirely unexplained and never routes to sibling search tools. The no-auth note is a genuinely valuable behavioral datum, but the definition is not complete end-to-end.

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: every one of the 5 params is explained with format hints ('lon_min,lat_min,lon_max,lat_max', 'YYYY-MM-DD' or 'start/end') plus a constraint the schema lacks (limit max 10, default 5). The omission is that collection IDs are given only as two examples, not enumerated.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and a specific resource (UK EO DataHub satellite/climate data via STAC), with two concrete query examples that make the scope tangible. It distinguishes itself from the generic stac_search by the '英国 EO DataHub' qualifier, but never names an alternative outright.

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 example queries ('UK climate model data', 'UK Sentinel imagery') and states the public catalog needs no auth, which implies when it is useful. However, it never says when to prefer this over stac_search, uk_stac_collections, or eodashboard_collections, so routing must be inferred.

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