satnogs_transmitters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals data provenance and filtering but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only lookup, whether authentication or permissions are required, rate limits, pagination, or what kind of result set to expect. For a database lookup tool with no annotations, this leaves important behavioral context unstated.

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 and front-loads the core resource before the filtering behavior. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes to selecting or invoking the tool.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It still leaves the detail parameter unexplained and provides no behavioral notes beyond data provenance, which makes the definition only minimally adequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, and two parameters exist. The description explains the satellite parameter well by tying it to a NORAD catalog ID and single-satellite filtering, but it says nothing about the detail parameter, its default of 'short', or what detail options mean. One of two parameters therefore remains undocumented.

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 that the tool returns known satellite transmitter frequencies from the SatNOGS database. It adds a key scoping behavior: passing a NORAD catalog ID filters to one satellite. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as satnogs_observations or satnogs_ground_stations, but the purpose itself is specific.

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?

It gives a practical usage instruction for the satellite parameter: pass a NORAD catalog ID to filter to one satellite. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus related siblings like satnogs_observations or satnogs_ground_stations, nor does it mention when filtering is unnecessary or how to request all transmitters.

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