Clarify that temporal and bbox args must be tuples in docstrings, fix docstring formatting

[mfisher87]

Addresses #279, but does not resolve it. This work exposed and addresses a couple of concerns, but there are some still I think that need more work.

Docstring formatting

On the main branch, there are some formatting errors that are causing key information to be omitted from the docs. It seems really easy to make these mistakes, and Mkdocs doesn't complain about them! How can we protect ourselves?

• We could really use some linting rules that can catch docstrings that are not formatted properly in the Google style. Ruff has some docstring PEP linters, but I don't think that's enough here. Can Ruff lint for Google docstring style?
• We need to be very careful with line-continuation. Line continuation must be done with an indent or everything on the next line will be either omitted or misformatted. A better option, IMO, is to use block style like many of the changes in this PR.
• We need to be very careful with whitespace. A blank line under Parameters: will cause the entire parameters block to be formatted like a code block instead of parsed.
• We have redundant type information in docstrings, e.g. strategy (String): duplicates the type (str) in the function signature. Mkdocs will pick up the type from the function signature so we don't need to keep these values in sync over time.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://earthaccess--448.org.readthedocs.build/en/448/

[mfisher87]

This enabled me to build docs without messing with Poetry. Wasn't sure if this is intentional, as CONTRIBUTING.md doesn't really specify.

[andypbarrett]

In my opinion, this clarifies the inputs.

[danielfromearth]

I believe this is ready to go now.

[mfisher87]

Wow, thanks Daniel for going all out on these docstrings!!! We needed this :)

[danielfromearth]

@mfisher87 , @jhkennedy , @andypbarrett , we could enable linting of docstrings via ruff this way. What do you think?

I just ran it and got many more things to potentially fix...

[mfisher87]

Heck yes, thank you for looking in to that!!! Should we break that in to another PR so we can merge this one?

[danielfromearth]

Heck yes, thank you for looking in to that!!! Should we break that in to another PR so we can merge this one?

sounds good to me 👍

Once any one else approves it —e.g., @mfisher87, @andypbarrett? — I'll merge it.

[jhkennedy]

This looks good to me!