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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description goes further with genuinely decision-relevant traits: values are computed estimates that can be off by a factor of a few, almost every listed object will not hit Earth, the content is an unaltered copy with no added assessment. That materially changes how an agent should present results.

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 reliability caveat is front-loaded and the sentences are short and purposeful. There is mild redundancy between 'Unaltered copy of the issuer's own notice' and 'ArrowMem adds no assessment', which restate the same non-endorsement point.

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 one-optional-parameter, no-output-schema read tool with rich annotations, the description covers what matters about the data's trustworthiness. The one real gap is behavior when designation is not supplied (full table vs. error), which an agent must guess.

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% and the single parameter is documented in the schema with an example, so the baseline applies. The description adds nothing about designation being optional or what the tool returns when it is omitted, so it neither compensates nor regresses.

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 (NASA/JPL Sentry impact-risk table entries) and pins the provenance, so an agent can tell what it returns. It omits the retrieval verb and never mentions that the tool can be scoped to a single object by designation, but the resource is unambiguous and no sibling overlaps.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it positions itself as a non-alerting reference ('Not an official alerting channel') which steers the agent away from treating results as warnings. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to omit the designation to get the whole table, and no alternatives named.

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