space.close-approaches

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (NASA JPL CAD), output fields, and sorting behavior, but lacks information on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no approaches are found. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, source, output fields, and sorting. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: what it does, source, and return fields. It does not explain the limit parameter or potential error scenarios, but for a data retrieval tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide whether to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'date window' (dateMin, dateMax) and 'max distance' (distMaxAu) parameters. However, it does not mention the 'limit' parameter, nor does it clarify format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The description adds partial but incomplete semantic context.

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 retrieves near-Earth asteroid/comet close approaches within a date window and maximum distance, sourced from NASA JPL CAD. It lists the specific return fields (designation, date, distance in AU and lunar distances, relative velocity, magnitude) and notes sorting by nearest-first, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like space.body or space.launches.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool's name and description, without explicit context for when it is preferred over related space tools.

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