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.