search_ground_stations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses source reliability, dataset differences, and result labeling. However, it omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or error cases.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by details and examples. Efficient and scannable.

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 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers major behavioral aspects: data sources, defaults, ordering, labeling. Slightly lacking on edge cases or error handling, but adequate for a search 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context on default sources and ordering, but the schema already describes parameter semantics well. Some additional interplay (e.g., entity_id requires source=extracted) is in 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 it searches ground/earth stations by name, frequency band, operator, or geographic proximity, with specific examples. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on ground stations and detailing proximity ordering.

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?

Provides explicit usage examples ('earth stations within 200km of 38.9,-77.0') and notes default data sources for different query types. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but context is clear.

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