get_near_earth_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool returns size, speed, distance, and hazard assessment for asteroids. However, it does not disclose authentication, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear structure with an 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third specifies parameter details. No unnecessary text.

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 absence of an output schema, the description lists key return fields (size, speed, distance, hazard) but does not mention response structure, array vs single object, or error handling. For a tool with 2 simple parameters and no nested objects, the description provides a basic understanding but lacks full completeness.

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 only provides parameter names and types with 0% description coverage. The description adds significant meaning by specifying date format (YYYY-MM-DD), that end_date is optional with a max 7-day span from start_date, and that start_date is required. This clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 states 'Erdnahe Asteroiden in einem Zeitraum abrufen (NeoWs).' This clearly identifies the specific verb (abrufen) and resource (Erdnahe Asteroiden) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_asteroid_details by focusing on a date range search.

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 explains the date range constraint (max 7 days) and that start_date is required, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_asteroid_details or search_nasa_images. Usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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