plot_altitude_from_gp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates a satellite spec from a GP record and delegates to plot_altitude(). It does not detail error handling or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent. A mention of plot generation or potential failures would enhance transparency.

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 succinct: a one-sentence purpose, a brief note on being a wrapper, then a clean Args list. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core function.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested object, output schema exists), the description covers the essentials. It explains parameters and the delegation pattern. The output is not described, but the output schema presumably covers return values. Could mention that the function generates a plot, but overall sufficient for an agent.

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 must compensate. It identifies all 6 parameters and adds meaning: gp_record as a dict from celestrak/spacetrack tools, start_epoch as ISO string, end_epoch as ISO string, propagator_type with two explicit choices, step_seconds with default 60, and title as optional. This fully bridges the gap.

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's purpose: 'Plot satellite altitude versus time from a GP record.' It uses a specific verb (Plot) and resource (satellite altitude vs time), and distinguishes it from sibling 'plot_altitude' by noting it is a convenience wrapper for GP records.

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 indicates it's a wrapper that delegates to plot_altitude(), implying use when you have a GP record dict. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context of being a wrapper provides clear guidance. It would be stronger with an explicit reference to plot_altitude as an alternative for satellite specs.

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