coming_overhead

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden and does so admirably. It discloses the refusal to predict beyond 90 seconds, the accuracy degradation over time, and the fallback behavior of reporting distant objects as 'inbound' with no countdown.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides a concise and well-organized rationale for the tool's limitation. Every sentence contributes meaningful context without padding.

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 behavioral context is rich and the tool is simple, but the lack of any parameter explanation and the absence of an output schema leave gaps. An agent can infer the main use case, but not the exact role of lat/lon or the expected response shape.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds nothing about the lat/lon parameters. It never explains that these are the observer's coordinates, what units to use, whether they are mandatory, or what happens if they are omitted. The bare property names provide minimal signal, but the description fails to compensate.

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 identifies the tool's function: reporting what will pass overhead within the next 90 seconds. The precise time window and the explicit refusal to predict further out distinguish it from related sibling tools like whats_overhead.

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 clear when-not-to-use guidance: it deliberately stops at 90 seconds and explains why longer predictions would be unreliable. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the behavioral constraints effectively tell an agent not to use this tool for longer-horizon questions.

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