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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns a single next launch and names the payload fields (NET, window, status, seconds to launch, projects on board), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 leads with the resource and then lists the returned data. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields, which is the main completeness risk. The only gap is the empty-state behavior — what is returned when no tracked project has an upcoming launch — a minor omission for a read-only lookup.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 ('the next launch carrying a tracked orbital-compute project') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. Sibling differentiation is only implicit — the word 'tracked' separates it from upcoming_launches, but that sibling is never named.

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 implied by the scope ('tracked orbital-compute project') rather than stated: there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to upcoming_launches for the general case. An agent can infer the fit but gets no 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned field set (including NORAD IDs and source URLs), which matters because 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 sentences, densely front-loaded with the resource and its fields, then the filterable dimensions. No filler, though the field enumeration is long enough to make the first sentence heavy.

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 usefully covers the return fields and the filter surface for a six-parameter read tool. It leaves default/pagination behavior of limit and any routing relative to sibling tools unexplained, which is a minor gap given the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 each parameter is already documented, including the enum for status and the free-text target for q. The description only restates the filter dimensions (company, status, category, text) without adding syntax or semantics 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?

The description names a specific resource (orbital compute / space data center projects) and enumerates the record fields (company, partners, hardware, launch date, vehicle, status, scale, funding, NORAD IDs, source URLs), making the tool's scope clear. However it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' or 'search', leaving the action implied by 'Filter by...'.

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 states which fields can be filtered but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as compute_satellite_orbits, next_compute_launch, upcoming_launches or tracker_changes. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use conditions.

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.