Satellite Situation Center spacecraft locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description wisely spends its budget elsewhere: it discloses that resolution is auto-raised to bound output, that no API key is required, and the exact per-observatory CSV columns returned. It does not mention error handling or the 366-day ceiling (left to the schema), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by output format and operational notes; no filler. Slightly dense with coordinate-system enumeration that the schema already carries, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description steps up by enumerating the returned columns and units (X/Y/Z km, lat/lon degrees, local time, radial distance), which is exactly what an agent needs. Remaining gaps such as pagination, error cases, and size limits are minor for a read-only data tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented with constraints and examples, setting the baseline at 3. The description restates the coordinate system list and the auto-raised resolution factor but adds no new syntax, format, or interaction guidance beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Positions of spacecraft (and the Moon and Sun) over a time range') sourced from a named provider, and pins down the coordinate systems and return shape. An agent can tell it apart from nasa_ssc_observatories (which it explicitly points to for IDs) and from sibling ephemeris tools like jpl_horizons.

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 context is implied (use it when you need spacecraft/Moon/Sun positions over a time span), and it helpfully routes to nasa_ssc_observatories for observable IDs. However, it never states when NOT to use it or compares it to overlapping siblings such as jpl_horizons or nasa_tle, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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