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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description goes well beyond them: the estimator is bounded Rust CPU weighted least squares, assumes constant velocity in a spherical Earth-fixed frame with R=6371.0088 km, applies a reduced chi-square cutoff of 9, and emits estimated/inconsistent/degenerate/no_convergence statuses with residuals. It also honestly caveats that local uncertainties are conditional on the model, not calibrated real-world accuracy.

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?

Dense, front-loaded and information-rich: purpose, method, assumptions, return statuses, limitations, scope, and integration status all appear in order. It runs long and reads as a block of clauses, but nearly every clause conveys distinct signal.

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 complex kinematic estimator, the description supplies the model assumptions, convergence outcomes, and accuracy caveats an agent needs. An output schema exists, so the explicit return-value enumeration is a bonus rather than a necessity, and nothing critical to 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 reported as 0% and there is effectively one top-level parameter with deep nesting, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by naming angular standard deviations and fixed clock offsets and restating the 2–4 observer range, but it does not explain the per-sample or per-observer fields the caller must populate.

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: 'Estimate a single moving object's 3D position and velocity from geometric azimuth/elevation tracks'. The observer-count constraint (2–4 stationary observers) and the fact it estimates kinematics distinguish it from siblings like compute_orbit, analyze_kinematics, and check_ephemeris.

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 clear usage context (stationary observers, 2–4 stations, angle tracks) and exclusions ('No refraction correction or automatic image analysis'), plus integration status ('independently callable; not yet registered in the native composition bank'). It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to a sibling tool when those conditions are unmet.

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