OrbitStudio

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: images are pre-published, each is captioned, and nothing is generated on request. It does not, however, discuss resolution or ordering.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return content, then the usage trigger and the negative constraint. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so concretely (what the images show, that they are captioned). For a simple two-parameter read tool with full annotations, nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both the world enumeration and the place lookup ('from search_places') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 specific verb (Return) and resource (pictures already published), and enumerates exactly what kinds of images come back (printed-model photos, app renders, map texture). The closing clause 'Nothing is rendered on request' further distinguishes it from any render-generating sibling.

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 a clear when-to-use trigger: 'Use it when the user wants to see what a model looks like.' It also excludes rendering on demand, but names no alternatives (e.g. suggest_model or get_product_info) for adjacent needs, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond the annotations by enumerating what is actually returned, which partially substitutes for the absent output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the topic ('Facts about OrbitStudio') followed by the content list and then the usage trigger. The content enumeration is dense but each item maps to something the agent may need to answer a question; no filler.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the topics covered. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has what it needs, though it lacks any note on response format or freshness of the pricing/plan information.

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, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the fact that no input is required, which is implied by its informational framing.

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 names a concrete resource (OrbitStudio) and enumerates the specific content returned: what it makes, its two tools and worlds, free vs. paid steps, the plans link, and the support address. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_worlds or suggest_model, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use it when the user asks what OrbitStudio is or which parts of it are free.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for adjacent questions (e.g., about worlds or previews), which the sibling list makes relevant.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the returned content, including 'data caveats', which is useful operational context an agent would not infer from the annotations. It does not cover pagination or response shape, keeping it short of 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The returned-field list is front-loaded in sentence one and the usage trigger in sentence two, so both an invocation decision and a selection decision are supported immediately.

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 present, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by naming the exact per-world fields including the caveat field. For a parameterless, read-only listing tool this is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret it correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4: there is no parameter semantics for the description to add, and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus a concrete resource (worlds currently offered) and an enumeration of the fields returned: size, known places count, default relief, smallest selection, data caveats. That field set is unique among its siblings, so an agent can tell list_worlds apart from get_preview, get_product_info, or search_places without opening a schema.

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?

The second sentence gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when the user asks which planets or moons can be printed.' That is a clear usage context, but it names no exclusion or explicit alternative tool for adjacent requests (e.g. when the agent should call search_places or get_product_info instead).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses the result payload (world, coordinates, box size, description, generator-opening link) and the constraint that only places OrbitStudio can actually open are searchable.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope first, trigger condition second, return shape third. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, including query examples and the world/limit constraints, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's mention of named places reinforces that query matches names but adds no syntax or matching-rule detail beyond the schema. 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 specific verb ('Search') and a precisely delimited resource ('named places OrbitStudio can open directly'), then enumerates the content types (craters, mountains, valleys, basins, landing sites) and worlds covered. An agent can tell this apart from list_worlds and the product/preview siblings without opening any schema.

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 explicit triggering conditions: 'when the user names or describes a place to 3D print, or asks what there is on a world.' No exclusions or named alternative are offered, so there is slight residual ambiguity with list_worlds for world-level browsing, but the usage context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the output is a link that launches an external viewer, it yields a printable plate, and no geocoding happens server-side. It does not say whether the link expires or how it is formatted, but with rich annotations this is adequate.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, followed by use cases and then the one hard constraint. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 read-only, single-shot link builder with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, input expectation and the no-geocoding limitation. It leaves only minor details (link lifetime, what the viewer does with the plate) unstated, which is acceptable.

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 100%, so every parameter (including the date range, time default of 21:00, place-as-engraving-label, and degree units) is already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that coordinates must be supplied by the caller, adding little beyond structured data — baseline 3.

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 artifact — 'Build a link that opens OrbitStudio Sky … as a 3D-printable star map plate' — plus the exact inputs that define it (place on Earth, local date/time). It also implicitly separates itself from the place-lookup sibling by stating it will not resolve place names.

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 concrete occasions (birth, wedding, 'night we met') and an explicit exclusion: 'Give the coordinates yourself; this tool does not look up place names.' It stops short of naming search_places as the alternative for geocoding, so the routing rule is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool itself does not generate anything, it returns settings derived from app defaults and the world's elevation-data limits plus a deep link the user must confirm with Generate. It also flags the constraint that a coordinate link cannot carry settings, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by usage condition and input/override rules. Every sentence carries information, but the opening sentence is long and nested, packing purpose, data sources and return value into one clause chain.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the gaps an agent would otherwise face are covered: what the tool returns (settings plus a clickable link), what happens next (user presses Generate), which inputs are mutually exclusive, and which settings are agent-chosen versus defaulted.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: that shape, size and relief are optional overrides with app defaults otherwise applied, that place and lat/long are mutually exclusive input routes, and that the latitude/longitude path loses the settings payload. That is above-baseline value, though not per-parameter detail.

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: 'Suggest OrbitStudio settings for a 3D-printed puzzle or ornament of a place,' and adds that it returns a deep link with settings pre-filled. Nothing in the sibling set (get_preview, list_worlds, search_places, star_map_link) does this, and the description makes the distinction obvious without opening any schema.

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?

'Use it when the user wants to make or print a model of a specific place' gives a clear triggering context, and it routes input selection by naming search_places as the source for a place versus raw lat/long. It stops short of stating when NOT to use the tool (e.g. when the user only wants to view or preview a map), so it is a 4 rather than a full when/when-not treatment.

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