list_surveys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the shape of the result (band, coverage, resolution, credit), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about ordering, volume, or cost of the listing, and being an enumerator with no side effects the risk is low.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its consumers, then the returned fields. Nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description needs to say what comes back, and it does by enumerating the key fields. For a parameterless listing tool this is nearly complete; only ordering or cardinality hints are missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste words on arguments.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('surveys') and scopes it to the imaging tools that consume the result, which separates it from list_catalogs and list_spectrum_templates by subject matter. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'available to render_cutout / render_multiwavelength' makes the usage context clear: this is how you discover valid survey inputs for those render tools. There are no explicit exclusions or negative guidance, but for a zero-argument enumerator the context is sufficiently clear.

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