plot_altitude

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

With no annotations, the description adequately describes the propagation and conversion process, and notes the satellite spec must include a 'source' key. However, it does not disclose assumptions, error conditions, or how the plot is handled (e.g., displayed or returned).

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 concise, with a clear introductory sentence followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 output schema exists and parameter count, the description covers the main purpose and parameter semantics. It is missing details on how the plot is returned or displayed, but the output schema may fill that gap. Overall, it is complete for most usage scenarios.

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%, so the description compensates with clear parameter explanations. It defines satellite (referencing compute_access format and required source key), provides defaults for step_seconds, and explains start/end epochs. 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 the tool plots satellite altitude versus time, specifying the WGS84 ellipsoid. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings by referencing orbit propagation and conversion, but does not explicitly differentiate from other plot tools.

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 mentions use cases like visualizing orbital decay and maneuver effects, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when not to use. The usage context is implied but not fully directive.

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