Close approaches (SOCRATES)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the upstream source (CelesTrak SOCRATES) and a 7-day lookahead window, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about rate limits, freshness, or how an empty result is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the predicted-approach scope and adds only clauses that earn their place. The semicolon-joined second clause is dense, but nothing is redundant or restated from the name or title.

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 4-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema and no per-parameter documentation anywhere, the description covers the filter and sort dimensions adequately but omits the result-limit parameter ('max', 1–50), default behavior, and any sense of the response shape.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It decodes the cryptic ORDER enum values into human terms (max probability, miss distance, time) and clarifies that name is a pattern (e.g. STARLINK, ISS) rather than an exact match. It leaves the 'max' parameter completely unexplained, which caps it below 5.

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 and resource ('Predicted close approaches'), plus the source (CelesTrak SOCRATES) and the temporal window (next 7 days). It is unambiguous on its own, though it never names a sibling (satellite_info, track_group, space_weather_*) to distinguish itself from them.

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 enumerates the three selectable scopes (NORAD id, name pattern, or overall), which implies how to call it, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer a sibling tool, and no statement about which filters can be combined.

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