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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety needs no restatement. The description does add one real behavioral fact beyond them — that only public tasks are returned — plus a semantic note that status reflects workflow state rather than scientific validity, which guards against misreading results. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or volume.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first clause. The second sentence is a framing caveat that is brief and arguably useful, though it is tangential to invocation and could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what comes back, and it never says what a task record contains, whether results are paginated, or how they are ordered. For a simple read-only list tool with one optional filter this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single optional orbit_id, so the description must carry the meaning. It does convey that orbit_id narrows the listing to one Orbit, which is the essential semantics, but adds no format, type, or behavior for an invalid/unknown id. Baseline 3 for a one-parameter filter.

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 and resource ("List public Orbit tasks") plus the scoping dimension (optionally one Orbit). The plural "tasks" vs. the sibling get_task and the "public/Orbit" qualifier make the intent reasonably distinct, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_orbits or get_task.

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?

"Optionally limited to one Orbit" implies when to supply orbit_id, which is genuine usage context. It offers no exclusions or alternatives, however, so an agent gets no guidance on when to reach for get_task or list_orbits instead.

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