Debris field / constellation tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral content beyond that: it states the tool aggregates counts and characterises objects, and that results are expressed as altitude bands and orbital regimes — meaningful since no output schema exists. It stops short of data-freshness or external-call behavior implied by openWorldHint.

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 verb and packs the input domains and the return characterisation into one pass. Slightly dense and colon-appended rather than cleanly structured, but no filler sentences.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only tool the description covers purpose, input values and result shape well. The notable gap is that both parameters are optional with no stated default: an agent cannot tell what a call with no arguments returns, nor whether group and debrisEvent are mutually exclusive. Source/freshness of CelesTrak GP data is also unstated.

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 must carry the load and largely does: it names the debrisEvent enum members and gives multiple valid `group` values that the bare regex pattern (^[a-z0-9-]{2,40}$) cannot convey. It does not clarify that the two parameters are alternative selector modes or whether both may be supplied at once.

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?

Specific verb pair plus resource: 'Count and characterise objects still in orbit' for a named debris event or CelesTrak GP group. It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings like satellite_info (single object) or conjunctions (pairwise events), though it never explicitly names an alternative. No schema opening is needed to know what it does.

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 supplies the concrete trigger conditions and enumerates usable input domains ('cosmos-1408, fengyun-1c...' or 'starlink, stations, gps-ops, oneweb, last-30-days'). What it omits is any exclusion or routing rule — e.g. when to prefer satellite_info or conjunctions, or whether the two parameter families can be combined.

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