space.observe

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the computational method (JPL orbital elements, validated accuracy <0.1 arcmin), required and optional inputs, and outputs. It does not explicitly state it's a read-only query, but the context strongly suggests it. The description is thorough for a query tool.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose with a question and then detailing outputs and optional inputs. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds value.

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 output schema, the description fully enumerates return values (RA/Dec, constellation, distance, magnitude, etc.) and includes observer-specific details. It also mentions validation accuracy. The information is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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 only 20% (body described). The description adds meaning for lat/lon by explaining they enable altitude/azimuth and visibility. However, 'at' (likely time) and 'altKm' (observer altitude) are not explained, leaving ambiguity. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 computes sky positions and visibility for asteroids and comets, using a question format to orient the user. It specifies the verb 'Propagates' and details the outputs, distinguishing it from siblings like space.body or space.close-approaches.

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 the tool is for celestial observation queries of small bodies but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., space.sky-tonight for general sky). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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