list_spacetrack_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is safe (no auth needed, static reference data), which implies read-only, non-destructive operation. No contradictions.

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 three sentences that are front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: what it lists, that it returns discovery info, and that it requires no auth. No fluff.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and the tool's simplicity, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, and its behavior (static, no auth). Complete for its complexity.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 the tool lists 'available SpaceTrack tools, request classes, filter fields, and operators' and 'returns discovery information.' This specific verb and resource combination distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools that cover different data sources (Celestrak, GCAT, 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 provides useful context: 'No authentication required' and 'returns static reference data.' This helps agents decide when to use this tool (for quick, safe exploration). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling names imply differentiation.

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