satnogs_observations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds that the data is 'real decoded telemetry from space', but it does not explain freshness, time range, caching, permissions, rate limits, or whether observations are global or station-specific. The output schema helps with return values, but operational behavior remains underspecified.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for the space, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter detail rather than reflecting thorough compression.

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 data-retrieval tool with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it should clarify scope, freshness, and the meaning of 'detail'. Instead it leaves the only parameter undocumented and does not say what 'recent' means or how this observation feed differs from related radio and satellite tools.

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 tool has one parameter, 'detail', with 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description never mentions it. With low schema coverage, the description should explain what 'detail' controls, such as the difference between short and full output, but it provides no parameter meaning at all.

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 identifies a specific resource (recent satellite downlink observations) and its source (the SatNOGS ground station network), which helps distinguish it from siblings like satnogs_ground_stations and satnogs_transmitters. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', and it does not directly name or contrast with the sibling tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tinygs_packets, radio_reports, or weather_sondes. The intended use case is implied by 'recent observations', but no exclusion, prerequisite, or comparison is provided.

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