search_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output contents (IDs, capture dates, cloud cover, preview URLs, pricing) and implies a read-only search, but it lacks details on pagination behavior, defaults, ordering, or error conditions. It provides some useful behavioral context but not a complete picture.

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 two compact sentences: the first states the action and filters, the second covers return values and usage. There is no fluff or redundancy; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, key filters, and output fields, which is adequate. However, given the tool's complexity (nested AOI object, pagination, multiple enums) and the absence of output schema or annotations, it leaves important gaps around pagination behavior, parameter formats, and the exact meaning of 'available' imagery. It is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 50%, so the description should compensate. It names the main filter dimensions (AOI, date range, resolution, sensor type) but omits pagination parameters (page/limit) entirely. It does not explain enum meanings or input formats beyond what the schema provides, leaving gaps for less obvious parameters.

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 verb 'Search' with a clear resource 'available satellite imagery' and enumerates filter dimensions (AOI, date range, resolution, sensor type). It also lists return contents, distinguishing it from tasking-related siblings like quote_tasking_order and fetch_order_image.

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 final sentence explicitly states usage: 'Use this as the first step when the user wants to find existing imagery.' This gives clear when-to-use context but does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of the strongest usage guidance.

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