describe_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'retrieves structural metadata' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. Minimal transparency.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No superfluous words, but could be slightly more precise (e.g., specifying 'metadata about dimensions and variables').

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's primary function, and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks notes on error handling or expected input format, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter coverage_id. The description adds minimal context by stating 'for a specific datacube (coverage)', implying coverage_id identifies a coverage. This adds some meaning beyond the raw schema but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as 'structural metadata for a specific datacube (coverage)'. This distinguishes it from siblings: list_coverages (listing), execute_wcps_query (querying), and wcps_query_crash_course (tutorial).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. No prerequisites or context for invoking the tool are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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