propagate_from_gp_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the internal behavior: for SGP4 it uses OMM elements directly, for others it converts to ECI state. It also lists all parameters with brief descriptions, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose return format or any side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and a paragraph explaining the advantage, followed by parameter listings. It is somewhat lengthy due to many parameters, but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise by merging redundant statements.

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 complexity (16 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and parameter details but lacks any description of return values, which is critical for an agent to use the output. No examples or additional context about propagation results. This gap reduces completeness.

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 does so by listing all 16 parameters with purpose and value hints (e.g., 'target_epoch: Single target epoch (ISO string)'). While the descriptions are terse, they add meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions, helping the agent understand usage. Missing details like valid ranges or defaults beyond what's in 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's purpose: to propagate from a GP record dict obtained from Celestrak/Spacetrack queries. It specifies the verb 'propagate' and the resource 'GP record', and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the advantage of using OMM elements directly to avoid TLE precision loss, which is unique among propagation 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 explicitly says to use this tool when you have a GP record from get_celestrak_gp or query_spacetrack_gp, providing clear input context. It implies when to use it but lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements or comparisons with sibling propagation tools (propagate_sgp4, propagate_keplerian, propagate_numerical).

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