steward_iss_pass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well for the payment rail: cost ($0.01 USDC on Base), the 402 quote flow, quote verification criteria (scheme, network, token, payee), spend-cap refusal, and key custody. It omits data freshness, caching, and rate-limit behavior beyond spend caps, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 is front-loaded, followed by the sibling distinction, then the payment mechanics. The final payment sentence is long and dense but every clause carries distinct information an agent needs (cost, verification, caps, custody).

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?

No output schema, but the description implies the return is flyover times, and it fully covers the payment/auth prerequisites for a paid call. For a 2-required-param read tool this is close to complete; only return-shape detail is left implicit.

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% – both lat and lon are fully documented in the schema with ranges and examples. The description adds only the word 'location', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Upcoming visible ISS flyover times for a location') and names the data source (CelesTrak). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, steward_weather, so an agent can route without opening 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 concrete use cases ('skywatching or satellite-aware scheduling') and an explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative rule: 'weather for conditions, this for flyovers.' Nothing is left to inference.

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