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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the hard data limits: only a time window or a day, never a place, and the seven-day/ninety-day horizons. It does not describe result volume, ordering, or what happens when a named object has no re-entry on record, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads what is returned before the usage triggers, and every clause carries content. The 'never a place' limitation is stated twice (once in sentence one, again in the closing sentence), which is mild redundancy for an otherwise tight definition.

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 and a single optional parameter, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it describes both return sets, their date fields, object classes, and the catalogue's naming convention. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 single `language` parameter has 100% schema coverage with an explicit enum and default, so the schema does the work. The description never mentions language selection, adding no meaning beyond the structured field — baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource: objects expected to re-enter within the next week with a UTC window, plus objects that came down in the last ninety days with a catalogue day. It also names the covered object classes (satellites, rocket bodies, debris) and explicitly scopes out location, which no sibling covers.

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?

Gives three concrete triggers: what is about to fall, whether a named object has re-entered, and what came down recently. It also states what it cannot answer (where anything falls). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling for the named-object case, but the trigger list is clear enough to route an agent.

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