get_space_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions default behavior for start_date (last 7 days) but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, pagination, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. Safety implications are not addressed.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, a list of event types, and a clear args section. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose for the args format.

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, the description should explain return values. It lists the types of data shown (flares, CMEs, storms) but not the format, structure, or any error handling. It is adequate but lacks detail on the response.

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 adds significant meaning: it explains start_date default (last 7 days), end_date as optional, and event_type enumerated values (all, cme, flare, storm). This clarifies usage beyond the schema's property names.

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 current space weather data from NASA's DONKI, listing specific data types (solar flares, CMEs, geomagnetic storms) and context (satellite operations, aurora forecasts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asteroid_details or get_earth_imagery.

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 provides usage context (important for satellite operations and aurora forecasts) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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