Satellite / debris lookup

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by enumerating the returned payload (owner, launch, status, decay, current orbit, live position). It does not mention rate limits, error behavior for unmatched names, or how 'live position' is sourced, but the return-content disclosure goes meaningfully beyond annotations.

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 with no filler: verb, object classes, source catalog, accepted identifiers, and returned fields, in that order. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers what it queries, the keys it accepts, and the fields it returns. The one remaining gap is disambiguation policy (e.g., ambiguous name matches, precedence among the three keys), but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 only 33% (only intlDes is documented in the schema), so the description has to carry weight, and it does map the three accepted lookup keys to the three parameters. However, it never clarifies that the parameters are alternatives (0 required) or what happens if multiple are supplied and conflict, which is the main semantic ambiguity an agent faces here.

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 (look up) and resource (any tracked object in the CelesTrak SATCAT) and enumerates the accepted lookup keys (NORAD id, name, international designator). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like track_group or conjunctions, which operate on collections or events rather than a single catalog object. The object classes (satellite, rocket body, debris) further sharpen scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the lookup framing rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the per-object catalog query, but the description never says when to choose it over track_group or conjunctions, nor does it give any prerequisites or exclusions. No alternatives are named. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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