Explorations are simply a cursory examination of the general features associated with a type of planetary terrain associated with a particular celestial bodies. They contain some generic information about the world and about features common to the surface type of the world being explored.
While it is unrealistic to suggest that a grasslands sector bordering equatorial deserts in the centre of a continental plate formed from eons of oceanic sedimentation before uplifting are identical to grasslands neighbouring tundra and owing their soil deposition to spreading run-off from polar glaciers, we presume that they are sufficiently similar compared to the differences with grasslands of other worlds. Further, as this information has an associated cost, charging for multiple explorations of one sector type on a single world could easily become frustratingly expensive.

Understanding an Exploration
An exploration is a relatively brief piece of text. It always has the format:
Surface Exploration/Name of Celestial Body/Sector Type
One or more paragraphs describing scenery and potentially interesting features.
e.g.
Surface Exploration/Primus Adventor/Grasslands
The thick lush grass grows to heights of just under three metres. The stems are under half a centimetre thick and would break under a strong wind if the grass wasn't so tightly packed.
The density of the flora makes them both difficult to explore and even harder to find the various land animals that are heard.
Some avian creatures are noted. These tend to be small, feeding on the seed-heads of the wind pollinated grasses.
Rivers are common, winding through the vegetation and bringing the only break to the uninterrupted grass.

The text is very open insofar as any aspect of this can be followed up by investigation. Does the lush grass seem particularly interesting? It is certainly tall for grass. Is it just grass though and has no commercial properties? It mentions seed-heads. Are there grains to be exploited? What about the animals? What sort are present, are they edible, are they dangerous? Could they be domesticated? They are heard but does this that there are sufficient numbers to warrant their exploitation?
It also mentions rivers. What about these? Are they laden with silt, do they flood, is this responsible for the fertility of the grasslands? Are they deep and clear and what about the flora and fauna within them?

In other words, the exploration is simply a composite of potential avenues to explore.

A word of caution though. The writing of the text is aimed at presenting the information in a straightforward manner. It is not meant to obfuscate. It the explorations reads quite bleakly, then the chance of discovering something really nice is highly unlikely.
Some sector types are less likely to yield resources than others. For example, ice on water (as in H₂O) worlds are likely to only contain dust and possibly a few semi-aquatic creatures presuming life exists. Even then, life can be presumed to be sparse so any resource is still likely to be poor.

When writing results it is not the aim of the GM to string things out in a cynical attempt to force the player to endure an obstacle course of special actions and investigations. Rather it is to present the information clearly and as soon as possible to the player based on their line of enquiry.

While in theory it is always possible to find some new aspect of a surface exploration or subsequent investigation, the GM applies the theory of diminishing returns.

As such it is normally the case that best resources will be discovered within one or two steps from the Surface Exploration. There is very little benefit (beyond satisfying personal curiousity) in examining the unusually splayed filaments on the dorsal flange of the fleas that infest the lesser dappled weasel that shares the bolt-holes of the great ground hogs.