compute_access_from_gp

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool is a convenience wrapper that delegates to compute_access, and lists all parameters with meanings. It does not mention side effects or return details, but the delegation nature is transparent.

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 starts with a clear one-line summary and uses a structured parameter list. Though lengthy, every part serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise by grouping related info, but it's well-organized.

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 12 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, the description covers all parameters, explains the typical use case, and references sibling tools. It lacks return value details (expected given no output schema), but is otherwise complete for an expert user.

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 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter, including types, defaults, and expected structure (e.g., gp_record dict, location with lon/lat). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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's a convenience wrapper for creating a satellite spec from a GP record and delegating to compute_access(). It specifies the common workflow involving get_celestrak_gp() or query_spacetrack_gp(), distinguishing it from compute_access which likely requires a pre-built spec.

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 explicitly says 'This is the most common workflow' and points to the preceding GP fetch tools, providing clear context on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks an explicit when-not statement but the context is strong.

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