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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the return shape (time/latitude/longitude/height points, GeoJSON MultiLineString split at the antimeridian) and a hard 360-point cap. With no output schema, this disclosure is genuinely load-bearing, though it says nothing about failure modes for non-Earth objects.

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 dense sentence with the primary subject front-loaded and no filler; each clause (points, GeoJSON, antimeridian split, point cap) carries information. Slightly weakened by being a sentence fragment with no explicit framing verb.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description correctly takes on the return-format explanation and does it well. However, it leaves the required `id` parameter and the units of 'height' unaddressed, and gives no indication of behavior when the id does not denote an Earth satellite.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes constraints already in the schema ('one or two orbits', 'up to 360 points') and says nothing about the sole required parameter `id`, which lacks a schema description and whose meaning (satellite identifier) must be inferred.

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 a concrete resource — the ground path of an Earth satellite over one or two orbits — and enumerates its output form (point list plus GeoJSON MultiLineString). It is clearly distinct from siblings like perigee_orbit or perigee_sky by virtue of the map-ready ground geometry, though it never names an alternate tool to contrast with.

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: 'ready for a map' hints at the mapping use case and 'over one or two orbits' bounds the scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over perigee_orbit, perigee_state, or perigee_passes, and no prerequisites such as requiring an Earth-orbiting object.

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