iss_pass_times

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and simply doesn't. It does not say whether the result is a current position or a list of computed pass windows, whether it is a read-only computation, or what triggers a meaningful result. The mismatch with the name 'pass_times' makes the behavior even less clear.

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?

One short sentence with no waste and the resource front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse for what it needs to convey, but there is no padding or redundancy.

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 tool named iss_pass_times with two required coordinates, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify what is being computed and what the caller receives. Instead it describes only a position lookup, leaving the pass-times semantics unexplained and the absence of return-value guidance unaddressed.

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 100%, so latitude and longitude are already documented as observer coordinates. The description adds that they are the observer's location, which is marginally more than the schema, but contributes no format, range, or unit information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (ISS position) and an observer-relative frame, but the tool name is iss_pass_times and nothing in the description mentions pass times. That mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous, and it is not distinguished from siblings like iss_position, iss_location, or iss_flyover.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than iss_position, iss_location, or iss_flyover, which are the obvious alternatives in the sibling list. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or routing cues.

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