describe_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does clearly indicate a read-only metadata retrieval with no data mutation, which is a useful behavioral signal, but it does not mention error behavior, required permissions, or any side effects.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It states the action and target immediately.

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 simple one-parameter metadata retrieval with an output schema, the description covers the essential what and who. The main omission is guidance on obtaining a valid coverage_id, but the sibling tool list_coverages and the single required parameter make this inferable.

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 for the sole parameter coverage_id is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only that the parameter refers to a specific datacube, which largely restates the parameter name, and does not explain where valid IDs come from or what format they take.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Retrieves') and a clear resource ('structural metadata for a specific datacube/coverage'). The word 'specific' distinguishes it from the sibling list_coverages, which enumerates coverages.

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 phrase 'specific datacube (coverage)' implies the tool is for looking up one known coverage, and sibling names like list_coverages suggest a prior listing step. However, it never explicitly states when to choose it over execute_wcps_query or that coverage_id should come from list_coverages.

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