Three tools with clear, consistent naming and reasonable descriptions. All input parameters have type definitions and descriptions within acceptable ranges. However, output schemas are not documented, error handling guidance is absent, and there is no evidence of structured error responses or recovery patterns. Descriptions are solid (100-150 chars) but lack context about when to use each tool relative to others. Parameters follow good constraints (lat/lon ranges specified), but no documentation of return structure, pagination strategy, or how tools compose. The server is functional but lacks production-grade polish expected for geospatial data APIs.

• Document output schemas for all three tools. For get_land_cover, specify: returns {coverage_type: string, percentage: float, temporal_range: [date, date], data_source: string}. For get_soil_type, specify: returns {soil_class: string, fao_code: string, description: string}. For get_landuse_dates, specify: returns {available_dates: [date, ...], date_range: [date, date]}.
• Add error handling guidance to each tool description: 'If coordinates are outside coverage area, the API returns a 404. Try nearby coordinates or call get_landuse_dates first to check coverage.'
• Add composition hints to get_land_cover: 'For best results, call get_landuse_dates first to confirm data availability at your coordinates and see the date range.'
• If get_land_cover returns multiple data sources or dates, document and enforce a result cap (e.g., max 50 records) with pagination via cursor or offset.
• Validate date parameters server-side with clear error messages: 'Invalid start_date: expected YYYY-MM-DD (e.g. 2001-01-15), got "2001-1-15".'
• Specify coordinate validation and error behavior: 'Latitude must be -90 to 90; longitude must be -180 to 180. Coordinates outside coverage area (e.g., Antarctica, open ocean) return: {error: "no_data", message: "No land use data at coordinates (lat, lon). Try a location with NLCD or Copernicus coverage."}'