tle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns ('satellite name, epoch date, and both TLE lines'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or data sources, leaving gaps in behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 required parameter, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the return values, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases or data availability, slightly reducing completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'norad_id' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Fetch'), resource ('Two-Line Element (TLE) set for a specific satellite'), and scope ('by its NORAD catalog ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_recent' and 'search_satellites' by focusing on retrieving detailed TLE data for a single satellite rather than listing or searching multiple satellites.

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 implies usage by specifying 'by its NORAD catalog ID,' suggesting this tool is for when you have a specific satellite ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_recent' or 'search_satellites,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions sorting and a default limit, but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time range). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List the most recently launched or updated satellites') and adds essential detail ('sorted by epoch date descending') without waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., what data fields are included), error cases, and behavioral constraints like rate limits or authentication. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 the schema fully documents the 'limit' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying recency filtering, which isn't parameterized. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('most recently launched or updated satellites'), with specific sorting criteria ('sorted by epoch date descending'). It distinguishes from 'search_satellites' by focusing on recency rather than general search, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_tle' (which likely retrieves specific orbital data).

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 implies usage for retrieving recent satellites, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_satellites' or 'get_tle'. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios is provided.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return of 'NORAD IDs and TLE data', which adds some context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two clear sentences that state the purpose and output. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys the core functionality, though it could be slightly more structured by including usage hints.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output but misses behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to explain the tool's full context, such as response format or limitations.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies the 'query' parameter is for name or keyword searches, but the schema already describes this. No additional syntax or format details are provided, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for satellites by name or keyword' specifies the verb (search) and resource (satellites), and 'Returns matching satellites with their NORAD IDs and TLE data' indicates the output. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tle' or 'list_recent', which might offer alternative ways to access satellite data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tle' or 'list_recent'. It mentions the search functionality but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools, such as for fuzzy matching or when exact identifiers are unknown.

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