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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'upcoming' passes but doesn't specify timeframes, data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool that likely queries external data with parameters like 'days' and 'minElevation', this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('Get upcoming radio communication passes of a satellite for an observer location') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, with zero wasted content.

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?

Given the complexity of satellite pass calculations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'radio communication pass' versus other types, what data is returned (e.g., pass times, durations, elevations), or how results might be limited (e.g., by the 'days' parameter). This leaves the agent with inadequate context for effective use.

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 100%, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how observer coordinates affect pass calculations) or typical usage patterns. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get upcoming radio communication passes') and the resource ('of a satellite for an observer location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_visual_passes' or 'get_satellites_above', which likely serve different observational purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_visual_passes' (which might be for optical observations) or 'get_satellites_above' (which might list satellites without pass details), leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error handling, which would be beneficial for completeness despite the low complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds context by specifying the time frame ('last 30 days'), which is valuable semantic information not captured in the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('satellites launched in the last 30 days'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_satellites_by_category' or 'search_satellites_by_name', which might also retrieve satellite data but with different filters or scopes.

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 implies usage for recent satellite launches within a 30-day window, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_satellites_by_category' or 'query_satellites_natural'. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'current position' and 'relative to an observer location', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires API keys (sibling 'set_n2yo_api_key' suggests possible authentication), rate limits, error conditions, return format, or whether it's a real-time calculation versus cached data. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's core function. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward calculation tool.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the position output includes (coordinates, elevation, azimuth), accuracy considerations, time sensitivity, or dependencies. With rich sibling tools and no structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context to be complete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool uses 'observer location' (which maps to observerLat, observerLng, observerAlt) and 'satellite' (noradId). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide additional context beyond what's in the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get current position of a satellite relative to an observer location', which specifies the action (get position), resource (satellite), and relationship (relative to observer). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_satellite_trajectory' (trajectory vs position) and 'get_visual_passes' (passes vs position), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_satellites_above' (multiple satellites) and 'get_satellite_tle' (TLE data), there's no indication of when this specific position calculation is preferred. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. cached data, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of satellites with properties).

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core functionality. It efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of satellite tracking (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover output details, error conditions, or behavioral traits like data freshness or API dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description implies parameters for observer location but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'searchRadius' interacts with location) or provide usage examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'satellites currently above an observer location', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_visual_passes' or 'get_radio_passes', which might have overlapping functionality for satellite observation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_satellites_by_category' or 'query_satellites_natural'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an API key (implied by 'set_n2yo_api_key' sibling), or exclusions like time-based filtering.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Get satellites') without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It uses parentheses to provide helpful examples without cluttering the main statement. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of satellites, details, or just counts), any limitations (e.g., pagination, data freshness), or how it interacts with other tools. For a retrieval tool with multiple siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (including enum values for 'category' and examples for 'country'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'predefined categories' and listing examples like 'military, weather, GPS, etc.', which partially overlaps with the enum. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'satellites' with the specific filtering mechanism 'by predefined categories', which is more specific than just the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_satellites_by_name' (which filters by name) and 'get_satellites_above' (which filters by location), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is clear but could be more differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'query_satellites_natural' or 'search_satellites_by_name', nor does it specify scenarios where category-based retrieval is preferred over other filtering methods. There's no information about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'Get' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., raw TLE strings or structured data). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get Two-Line Element (TLE) data for a satellite by NORAD ID') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving specific satellite data) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what TLE data entails, the format of the return value, potential errors, or how it fits among sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the basic parameter input.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'noradId' parameter as the 'NORAD catalog number'. The description restates this by mentioning 'by NORAD ID' but doesn't provide additional context like valid ID ranges, examples, or how to obtain the ID, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Two-Line Element (TLE) data for a satellite by NORAD ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_satellite_position' or 'get_satellite_trajectory', which might also involve satellite data retrieval but for different types of information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to satellites (e.g., 'get_satellite_position', 'get_satellite_trajectory', 'query_satellites_with_tle'), there is no indication of scenarios where TLE data is preferred over other satellite information, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'over time period' and 'for visualization', implying it returns trajectory data, but doesn't specify output format (e.g., coordinates over time), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get satellite trajectory') and adds context ('over time period for visualization') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., trajectory data format), behavioral traits like rate limits, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool that likely outputs time-series data for visualization, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (noradId, observerLat, observerLng, observerAlt, seconds). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying time period usage via 'over time period', which aligns with the 'seconds' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'satellite trajectory' with the purpose 'for visualization', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_satellite_position' or 'get_visual_passes', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_satellite_position' (which might give a single position) or 'get_visual_passes' (which might focus on visibility). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context with sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what format the output takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'space debris' includes (e.g., defunct satellites, rocket bodies), the output format, whether results are filtered or paginated, or any error conditions. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'searchRadius' in degrees translates to spatial coverage or clarify the coordinate system). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'space debris currently above an observer location', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_satellites_above' or 'query_satellites_natural', which might have overlapping functionality for celestial objects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for satellite/space object queries (e.g., get_satellites_above, query_satellites_natural), the description lacks any context about when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from others.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does without explaining how it behaves. It doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'visual passes' entail (e.g., visibility conditions, timeframes), leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational traits.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It uses clear terminology ('upcoming visual passes', 'satellite', 'observer location') and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse while fully earning its place in the tool definition.

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?

Given the complexity of satellite tracking and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'visual passes' are, the format of returned data, or any limitations beyond implied ones, leaving the agent with inadequate context to effectively use this tool in practice.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema already provides, as schema description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters like 'noradId' and 'observerLat', but the description doesn't enhance understanding with additional context or examples.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get upcoming visual passes') and the resource ('of a satellite for an observer location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_radio_passes' or 'get_satellite_position', which reduces clarity in a server with multiple satellite-related tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_radio_passes' for radio passes or 'get_satellite_position' for current positions. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates the tool answers questions, it doesn't describe how it processes natural language, what types of answers it provides (e.g., list, summary, detailed report), potential limitations, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose with relevant examples. Every word serves a purpose, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does but lacks details about behavioral characteristics, output format, and limitations. Given the complexity of natural language processing and the absence of structured behavioral hints, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful information about parameters beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Answer') and resource ('natural language questions about satellites'), and provides concrete examples that illustrate its function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_satellites_above or get_satellite_position by emphasizing natural language processing rather than structured queries.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for natural language questions about satellites) through its examples, which helps differentiate it from siblings that require structured inputs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning structured data with Name and TLE, but lacks critical behavioral details such as data source, accuracy, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it performs real-time queries versus cached data. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Find satellites by natural language query') and specifies the return format. There is no wasted language or redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of satellite data querying, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return structure beyond 'Name and TLE', doesn't address data freshness or limitations, and offers no context on how natural language queries are processed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying natural language querying, which is already covered in the schema's 'query' parameter description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Find satellites by natural language query') and the resource ('satellites'), specifying that it returns structured data with Name and TLE. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_satellite_position' or 'get_radio_passes' by focusing on query-based retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'query_satellites_natural' which appears similar.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_satellites_by_category', 'search_satellites_by_name', 'query_satellites_natural'), there is no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to help an agent choose appropriately.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for searching, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Search for satellites by name or international designator.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant words, and every part contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like authentication needs or result format, and while the parameter is covered by the schema, the overall context for a search tool with potential complexities (e.g., handling multiple matches, error cases) is underspecified. This makes it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter fully documented as 'Search term (satellite name or international designator).' The description adds no additional semantic details beyond this, such as examples or formatting tips. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for satellites by name or international designator.' It specifies both the verb ('Search') and the resource ('satellites'), making the function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_satellites_natural' or 'query_satellites_with_tle,' which might also involve satellite queries, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'query_satellites_natural' or 'get_satellites_by_category.' This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Configure' implies a write/mutation operation that likely persists settings, but the description doesn't specify whether this is required before using other tools, if it's reversible, what happens on failure, or if it affects all subsequent operations. Significant behavioral context is missing.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 configuration/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship to sibling tools (which all appear to depend on this API key), what happens after configuration, error conditions, or persistence scope. The context signals suggest this is a critical setup tool, but the description doesn't reflect that importance.

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 100% (the single parameter 'apiKey' is fully described in the schema as 'N2YO API key from your account'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Configure') and the resource ('N2YO API key for satellite tracking'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings, which are all read-only satellite data retrieval tools, while this one appears to be a configuration/write operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given that all sibling tools are read-only satellite data queries, this tool likely sets up authentication for those operations, but this relationship isn't explained. No prerequisites, timing, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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