Visible Starlink passes

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest and does disclose meaningful behavior: the default scope (6 most recent launches, the bright low trains) and hard caps (up to 3000 satellites, max 6 h). It stops short of describing result shape or empty/failure behavior.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the mode/default behavior. Slightly compressed but every clause carries information.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the definition is only adequate: it omits what the start date-time does relative to hours, how minElevationDeg and maxResults shape results, and what a returned pass looks like. It is callable but an agent would guess at several knobs.

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 only 33% (tz, lat, lon), so the description must compensate, and it does add real semantics for 'mode' (bright low trains vs the full 3000-satellite sweep) plus the effective time cap for that mode. However, start, altitudeM, maxResults, and minElevationDeg remain unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

Names a specific resource and outcome ('Visible Starlink passes and trains over a location'), which is clearly narrower than the generic sibling satellite_passes. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains default versus 'mode: all' behavior, which implicitly tells the agent when each mode is appropriate, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to satellite_passes or other siblings, nor any exclusions.

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