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.