Orbitwren

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what is returned (perigee/apogee and period) and that data comes from CelesTrak, but says nothing about rate limits, freshness, or whether empty input returns everything — that last fact lives only in the 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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the key return fields are front-loaded. The nested parentheticals make it slightly harder to parse than ideal, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the source and the returned orbital quantities reasonably well. It still leaves the agent guessing about result volume, pagination or when to prefer this over sibling tools, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself, including the critical 'empty = every tracked compute satellite' behavior. The description restates 'by NORAD ID or project' without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 the data source (CelesTrak), the returned quantities (perigee/apogee, period), and the scoping keys (NORAD ID or project). However, it uses no verb at all — nothing states that this retrieves/fetches rather than computes — and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like orbital_compute_projects or next_compute_launch.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The parenthetical '(by NORAD ID or project)' hints at how to scope a query, but with four siblings in the same domain, the agent gets no help choosing this tool over orbital_compute_projects.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them by enumerating the payload (NET, window, status, seconds to launch, projects on board) and specifying the null-on-no-scheduled-launch empty state.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the scope, then the field list, then the empty-state contract — no filler, nothing redundant with the title or 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 return values and does so by listing the key fields and the null case. It is nearly complete for a zero-param read tool, though date formats for NET/window or whether it includes past launches remain unstated.

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 there are no parameter semantics to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, which is appropriate for a no-arg tool.

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 gives a specific resource ('the next launch carrying a tracked orbital data center / space AI compute project') and implicitly states the return contents, so an agent knows this is the launch-timing view rather than a project catalog. It does not name the sibling it supersedes (e.g. upcoming_launches), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to learn whether a compute launch is imminent, and the 'null when none is scheduled' clause hints at the empty case. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as upcoming_launches or orbital_compute_projects.

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, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond them: the paid-key auth requirement and the fact that results include companies and source URLs, which is genuinely useful since there is no 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 compact sentences with the resource and returned alert types front-loaded and the access prerequisite at the end; no filler. The 'Orbitwren Alerts:' lead-in is slightly redundant with the title but harmless.

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 4-param, no-required-arg tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent cannot get from structured fields: the auth/cost requirement and the shape of the returned data. Only pagination/limit interplay and sibling differentiation are absent.

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 type, limit, since and company are all documented in the schema, including the allowed alert-type values. The description adds no syntax, default, or filtering nuance 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 resource (classified alerts for orbital data centers and space AI compute) and enumerates the alert types returned. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling alert/change tools such as tracker_changes or upcoming_launches, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.

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 description surfaces a real precondition — a paid Orbitwren Alerts key ($5/month) — which is useful gating information. But it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like tracker_changes or upcoming_launches, leaving selection to inference.

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, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the field inventory (NORAD IDs, funding, source URLs) but says nothing about result freshness, pagination, or ordering. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource scope and field inventory, then gives example queries and filter dimensions. Slightly list-dense with the NORAD/funding/source enumeration, but every element is informative and there is 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?

The description covers scope, fields returned, example queries, and filterable dimensions, which is substantial for a read-only search tool. Without an output schema, it helpfully names the data fields. Minor gap: no mention of result limits or ordering behavior.

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 is already documented in the schema. The description's listing of filter dimensions (company, status, category, text) mirrors what the schema already says, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 resource (orbital data centers and space AI compute projects) and enumerates the fields returned, with example natural-language queries. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compute_satellite_orbits or next_compute_launch.

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?

Provides concrete example questions ('who is building orbital data centers?', 'are there data centers in space?') that establish when to use this tool. However, it never names or excludes the siblings (e.g., why not compute_satellite_orbits), so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope by naming the tracked change categories, but it does not describe ordering, pagination, or return shape beyond what the annotations and params imply.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the scope of changes. It is appropriately sized for the tool's low complexity.

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 low-complexity read operation with rich annotations and full schema descriptions, the description conveys the tracked change types adequately. It omits sort order and pagination behavior, but the limit parameter and annotations cover enough for correct invocation.

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 parameters (limit, since) are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, syntax, or defaults, so the baseline of 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?

The description states the specific resource (day-to-day changes) and enumerates the change types returned (project status, launch dates, NORAD IDs, tracked launch NET/status). It is clear enough to distinguish from compute or upcoming-launch siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The only usage context is implied by 'Day-to-day changes'; an agent must infer when to call this instead of upcoming_launches or compute tools.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source (Launch Library 2) and the semantic meaning of the rideshare/compute flags, but says nothing about pagination, result caps or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the filter options after; nothing is padded, though the semicolon-joined filter list is dense.

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, zero-required-parameter query tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is adequate: source, scope and filter dimensions are stated. Only the relationship to the compute-focused siblings is left unexplained.

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 already has its own documented meaning, including ranges and defaults. The description only restates the filter names and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Upcoming orbital launches from The Space Devs Launch Library 2', plus the dimensions it can filter. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling next_compute_launch or make clear why an agent would pick this list tool over that one.

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 description enumerates what can be filtered (days ahead, rideshare, compute, provider, country, text), which implies usage, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives such as next_compute_launch for a single upcoming compute launch.

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