get_exoplanets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions that it searches a database of over 5,000 confirmed exoplanets and lists parameters with defaults (e.g., limit default 20, max 50). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any rate limits or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 concise: one introductory sentence and a bullet-like list of parameters. However, the parameter descriptions are on separate lines without bullets, making it slightly less structured than ideal. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., fields of an exoplanet record) or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter. The agent lacks information on what data the tool returns, which is critical for effective use.

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 0%, so the description completely compensates. It describes each parameter with units (Jupitermassen for masses), examples (e.g., 2024 for year, 'Transit' for method), and optionality. However, it does not enumerate all possible values for discovery_method, which would improve semantics slightly.

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 that this tool searches for confirmed exoplanets from NASA's Exoplanet Archive, mentioning a database of over 5,000 exoplanets. The verb 'suchen' (search) and resource 'Exoplaneten' are specific. However, it does not explicitly state that it returns a list of exoplanet records, which would further clarify the output.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for related queries (e.g., asteroid details, Mars rover). The description only states what the tool does, not the context for selection.

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