ISS and satellite passes

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the naked-eye visibility criterion (satellite sunlit, sky dark) and the CelesTrak TLE + SGP4 data/model provenance. It still omits rate limits, TLE freshness, and failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences front-loaded with the primary capability, targets, visibility semantics, and data source. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 10-parameter tool with 50% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and the main input concept but leaves the time-range and elevation parameters unexplained. An agent has enough to call it, but not enough to use the optional parameters confidently.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning mainly for the satellite/noradId fields (naming conventions and default) and implies the visibleOnly behavior. Time-window (hours, start), altitudeM, and minElevationDeg remain undocumented in both schema and description, so it only partially compensates.

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+resource ('Predict passes') and enumerates the supported targets (ISS default, Tiangong, Hubble, or any satellite by name/NORAD id). An agent can grasp the tool's scope quickly, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling starlink_passes despite overlapping function.

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 (predict passes over a lat/lon location, ISS as default). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and it does not route the agent toward starlink_passes for Starlink-specific queries, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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