search_space_station_authorizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral facts beyond that: total always reports the full match count, rows cannot be paged, and output is truncated at ~40 KB with an explicit note of how many rows were dropped. It does not explain what a row looks like beyond the us_market_access field, which is a minor gap.

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?

Purpose and the SSAL scope are front-loaded, then filters, then response behavior, then examples – a sensible order. The middle clause enumerating every filter is somewhat list-heavy and partially duplicates the schema, but nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still discloses the response envelope (`total`), a key output field (`us_market_access`), and the truncation behavior. For a 10-parameter read-only search tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining the interaction between filters ('U.S. market access is granted=true with foreign=true') and by demonstrating how multiple filters compose in a real query, which is the non-obvious part of using this parameter set.

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 and resource ('Search the FCC Approved Space Station List (SSAL)') and immediately scopes the resource as U.S.-licensed plus foreign systems approved for U.S. market access. That scope distinguishes it from siblings like search_satellites and search_ground_stations without needing to inspect either schema.

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?

Gives two concrete triggering questions and maps each to the exact filter combination and count_only setting ('is_ngso=true, foreign=true, granted=true, count_only=true' and 'is Telesat's system on the SSAL?'). An agent can match a user question to this tool directly rather than inferring.

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