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 adds real behavioral scope beyond that: multilingual input with optional accents, and the constraint that only missions beyond Earth orbit are included while any active Earth satellite is covered. It does not disclose how ambiguous or multiple matches are ordered/ranked, which matters for a fuzzy lookup.

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: verb first, then entity scope, then the return-value purpose. Every clause carries information — no restatement of the title or name.

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 partially compensates by stating that ids are returned for use by other tools, which is the critical output fact. It omits the shape of a result (name, id, type match fields) and what happens when a query matches several objects, which for a resolver tool would be worth one more clause.

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% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting the query accepts English or French and tolerates missing accents, which the schema's examples do not convey. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 verb and resource ("Looks up objects by name or identifier") and enumerates the resolvable entity classes: planets, moons, deep-space missions, active Earth satellites, launch/landing sites, named stars. The closing clause "Returns ids for the other tools" distinguishes it from perigee_object and the id-consuming siblings, making it clearly the resolution/entry-point tool.

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 final sentence establishes the role in the workflow — this is the tool that produces ids other tools consume — which is a clear usage signal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g. when you already have an id and should call perigee_object directly), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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