milestone_adherence

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which matches the read-only nature of the tool. The description reinforces that it returns data on milestone adherence, with optional aggregate counts. No contradictions; no additional behavioral concerns need disclosure.

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 with a semicolon separating purpose from filter instructions. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words.

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?

The description covers purpose, filters, and summary mode. Absence of output schema is noted but acceptable for a simple query tool. It could mention default behavior or data format, but overall adequate.

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 description adds minimal new meaning beyond listing the parameters. It provides a quick reference for classification values (met|pending|etc.) which adds marginal value.

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: reporting FCC deployment milestone adherence for satellite systems, including regulatory citation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_bond_portfolio or search_satellites.

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 lists available filters (call_sign, classification, is_ngso, summary) and implies usage context for regulatory compliance queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear.

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