We take the perspective in which we want to design a downstream task (such as estimating vegetation coverage) on a certain area of interest (AOI) with a limited labeling budget. By leveraging an existing Foundation Model (FM) we must decide whether we train a downstream model on a different but label-rich AOI hoping it generalizes to our AOI, or we split labels in our AOI for training and validating. In either case, we face choices concerning what FM to use, how to sample our AOI for labeling, etc. which affect both the performance and uncertainty of the results. In this work, we perform a large ablative study using eight existing FMs on either Sentinel 1 or Sentinel 2 as input data, and the classes from the ESA World Cover product as downstream tasks across eleven AOIs. We do repeated sampling and training, resulting in an ablation of some 500K simple linear regression models. Our results show both the limits of spatial generalizability across AOIs and the power of FMs where we are able to get over 0.9 correlation coefficient between predictions and targets on different chip level predictive tasks. And still, performance and uncertainty vary greatly across AOIs, tasks and FMs. We believe this is a key issue in practice, because there are many design decisions behind each FM and downstream task (input modalities, sampling, architectures, pretraining, etc.) and usually a downstream task designer is aware of and can decide upon a few of them. Through this work, we advocate for the usage of the methodology herein described (large ablations on reference global labels and simple probes), both when publishing new FMs, and to make informed decisions when designing downstream tasks to use them.