maritime_satellite_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the upstream data limitations (no MMSI, name, or position age) and the truncation behavior ('count is the true total even when the list is trimmed'). It omits permission/rate-limit/auth context, which is a minor gap for a read-only 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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds information: scope, data limitations, bbox format, count semantics. The line breaks are slightly awkward but no sentence is disposable.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the data-provenance caveats are strong. However, the undocumented `detail` parameter and the absence of an explicit pointer to the alternative vessel tool leave an agent without enough to call it optimally in a multi-tool workflow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully specifies bbox syntax and ordering (lon0,lat0,lon1,lat1) and notes it is optional, but the `detail` parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving its allowed values and effect unknown.

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+resource (unidentified satellite AIS positions of ships in open ocean) and immediately scopes it against coastal AIS, which separates it from maritime_vessels_bbox and query_vessels. An agent knows exactly what corpus it is querying without opening the schema.

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 'open ocean, beyond coastal AIS' framing plus the explicit 'do not present one as a tracked, identified vessel' caveat gives clear context for when this source is appropriate. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for identified vessels, so routing is implied rather than prescribed.

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