satellite_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait — Japanese names are auto-expanded to English terms ("ひまわり"→himawari) — which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about the returned record's fields, error behavior, or whether query and agency combine with AND/OR semantics.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and efficient, but the example list "meteor", "resurs", "goes", "himawari", "だいち" appears twice — once at top level and again verbatim inside the query argument — which is avoidable repetition.

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?

For a 3-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs well but omits any indication of the response shape (what 'operational status' fields an agent will get back), leaving the agent to discover the return format by calling it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all three parameters are explained, including the hidden 20-item maximum for limit and the Japanese-to-English expansion for query. The only gap is the interaction between query and agency (combined filter vs. alternative lookup).

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns operational status for meteorological/earth-observation satellites from the WMO OSCAR catalog. The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like sat_tle or general catalog search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Several example queries (「ロシアの気象衛星」「Meteor-Mの運用状況」, "goes", "himawari") imply when the tool is useful. However, there is no statement of when NOT to use it, and no routing away from near-neighbors such as weather_satellite_now, qzss_status, or cnsa_status.

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