search_satellites

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 discloses that it searches a satellite catalog and joins to a resolved operator entity, but does not mention read-only nature, response format, pagination, rate limits, or any potential side effects. This is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences: first clearly defines purpose and available filters, second provides concrete queries. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Highly efficient.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it, including a helpful note about operator field quirks. It is missing details on response format and error handling, but for a search tool with well-documented parameters, this is 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving usage examples (e.g., using 'operator' and 'orbit_class' together) and a caveat about operator field often containing country codes. This compensates above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search the satellite catalog') and resource ('UCS + Space-Track SATCAT'), lists multiple search fields, and provides concrete usage examples ('what does SpaceX have in LEO?', 'find NORAD 44713'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on bonds, entities, filings, etc.

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 gives explicit usage examples (e.g., 'what does SpaceX have in LEO?') and implies when to use (satellite catalog queries). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools like search_semantic, leaving room for ambiguity.

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