get_satellite_passes

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

With NO annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and exceeds expectations. It discloses the datum reference ('referenced to the EGM2008 geoid, not to a national datum and not to any gage datum'), issues a critical warning against misuse ('cannot be differenced against a stage or a surveyed elevation'), and clarifies identifier semantics ('SWORD river reach id and is not a US station number'). This prevents a whole class of subtle analysis errors.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: definition, coverage scope, and two critical caveats. No fluff or filler; every clause carries semantic weight. Could be marginally tightened but is well within the 'appropriately sized and front-loaded' bar.

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?

For a tool with only 3 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, coverage scope, datum references, cross-referencing caveats, and identifier format—addressing the highest-risk failure modes an agent could encounter when invoking this tool. Nothing material is left unexplained.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine value by elaborating on feature_id ('is a SWORD river reach id and is not a US station number'), preventing an easy mix-up. The start/end parameters are self-explanatory ISO date strings, so the datum caveat—not parameter elaboration—is where the description's energy is best spent.

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 uses a specific resource ('Water surface elevation measured from orbit by the SWOT mission, for a river reach') and differentiates from sibling gauge-based tools by noting 'Covers reaches no gauge stands on.' This clearly distinguishes it from the gauge-data siblings like get_series and get_latest, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

'Covers reaches no gauge stands on' gives explicit situational context for when to choose this tool over alternatives (i.e., when the reach is ungauged). It doesn't name sibling tools explicitly like the calibration HIGH example, but the implication is strong and unambiguous in context of available siblings.

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