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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'hazard classification' but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description adds only marginal context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and data summary. No unnecessary words.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It lists the categories of data returned, which is helpful. However, it does not mention pagination, error handling, or whether multiple results are possible. Still, for a tool with strong annotations and schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with good descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Hence it provides no extra value for parameter understanding.

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 looks up asteroid or comet data by name/designation, lists the types of data (orbital elements, physical parameters, discovery info, hazard classification), and names the source (NASA JPL SBDB). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jpl.asteroids.approaches and solar.system.bodies.

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 implies usage for looking up specific small bodies but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like jpl.asteroids.approaches or solar.system.bodies. No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives is provided.

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