Satellite Situation Center spacecraft list

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it states no API key is required (auth) and that results include data time ranges and resolution (output shape). It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but with strong annotation coverage this is a solid contribution.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's scope, followed by usage and auth details. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple discovery list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output content (time ranges and resolution), usage with the sibling, and auth requirements. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination or result limits, but given the tool's simplicity and rich annotations, it is largely sufficient.

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 fully documents both optional parameters (search and active_on). The description does not add any parameter-specific syntax, format, or matching behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (spacecraft and observatories computable by SSCWeb) and what the tool returns (IDs, data time ranges, resolution). It distinguishes itself from the sibling nasa_ssc_locations by telling the agent to use the IDs with that tool, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit 'list' verb.

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 names the sibling tool nasa_ssc_locations and gives a concrete usage instruction ('Use the IDs with nasa_ssc_locations'), plus an auth note ('No API key needed'). It does not explicitly state when to call this tool versus other discovery tools, but the linkage to the sibling provides clear routing context.

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