Sample Raster Values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds useful behavior: points format, band omission for all bands, and CRS expectation. It doesn't mention edge cases like out-of-bounds points, but overall adds value.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded: action, then param details, then cross-reference for CRS conversion. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers CRS handling, multi-band sampling, and coordinate format, which are the main contextual concerns for use.

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 compensates well. It explains `points` as a list of [x,y] in raster CRS and `band` as optional to sample all bands. `raster_layer` is not described but is self-explanatory. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool 'samples raster pixel values at points', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like `zonal_statistics` and `get_raster_info` by focusing on point-based sampling.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use `transform_coordinates` if points are in a different CRS, which is a key prerequisite. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about when not to use this tool.

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