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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds significant behavioral detail: the ICFS cutover undercount caveat, the always-present icfs_cutover note, the flat-params requirement, and the JSON aggregate return with citations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is long, but every major section earns its place: the dense opening covers scope and data, and the engraved-boundary section prevents misuse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses examples effectively, though a few codebook details could be trimmed without loss.

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?

For a tool with a free-form params schema and no per-parameter documentation, the description is remarkably complete: it covers filtering, grouping, output behavior, citation re-verification, temporal boundaries, and the undercount caveat. Since an output schema exists, detailed return documentation is not needed.

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 input schema has zero description coverage and only a generic free-form params object, so the description fully compensates. It enumerates the filterable fields (applicant_name, app_type_code, status_code, callsign, file_number, state, applicant_country, report_period_from/to, date_grant/expire), grouping fields, order_by, top_n, include_records, and provides concrete examples with code meanings.

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?

The description opens with 'Query the verified FCC satellite licensing docket' and precisely defines the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing the query as the satellite-buildout licensing pipeline and explicitly pointing to get_source_evidence_v1 for record re-verification.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for questions about who is authorized, what has been filed, and where filings stand') and extensive when-not boundaries: no orbital catalogs, no launch activity, no earth stations, and no post-ICFS intake. It also names describe_space_satellite_filings_v1 for codebooks and get_source_evidence_v1 for evidence.

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