plot_gp_history_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that it visualizes changes over time, accepts two data sources, and allows selecting specific elements. However, it does not mention potential issues like network dependency, rate limits, or error handling for SpaceTrack fetches.

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 well-structured with a clear summary first, then general explanation, and a detailed Args section. It is not overly verbose given the need to explain parameters, though the Args list could be slightly condensed.

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 description is largely complete, covering both input modes, element selection, and plot title. However, it does not mention the need for SpaceTrack credentials or network access when using norad_cat_id, and assumes the user knows how to obtain gp_records. The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by providing detailed parameter documentation. It explains each parameter's purpose, valid values for `elements`, and the source options for data. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 orbital element trends from GP history records. It specifies the resource (GP history) and action (plotting trends). While it distinguishes from siblings like `plot_orbit_elements` by focusing on historical changes, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like `plot_orbit_elements_from_gp`.

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 guidance on two input modes: pre-fetched gp_records or auto-fetch via norad_cat_id. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over other plotting tools (e.g., `plot_altitude`, `plot_orbit_elements`) or mention any prerequisites like SpaceTrack authentication.

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