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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the categories of metadata returned (filters, groupings, metrics, detail and citation fields), but says nothing about output format beyond that with annotations carrying the rest.

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 that front-loads the verb and lists only the meaningful output categories. No filler, no redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and an empty parameter set means no input guidance is required. It sufficiently conveys what the tool yields, though it could note the query tool it supports.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description enumerates the dimensions it documents but there are no parameters for it to clarify further.

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 ('describe') and resource ('space.satellite_notices') and enumerates what it returns: valid filters, groupings, metrics, detail fields, and citation fields. The target dataset is named, which implicitly separates it from sibling describe_space_satellite_filings_v1, but no explicit differentiation is made.

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?

Usage is implied: an introspection tool returning valid filters/groupings/metrics meant to be consulted before querying. It never explicitly says 'use this before query_space_satellite_notices_v1' or when not to use it, so guidance is present but inferred rather than stated.

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