search_nasa_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions page_size maximum of 100 but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or how results are returned. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 with a clear opening sentence, a brief note about coverage, and a bulleted list of arguments. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the arg list could be more tightly integrated.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format or pagination behavior. For a search tool with 5 parameters, it should be more complete to guide the agent on what to expect.

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?

All 5 parameters are described with meaning beyond the schema: query with examples, media_type with allowed values, year_start/end for date filtering, page_size with default and max. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds significant value.

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's purpose: searching NASA's image and video library with over 140,000 media. It explicitly mentions 'Bild- und Video-Bibliothek' and differentiates from sibling tools like get_asteroid_details or get_mars_rover_info, which are more specific.

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 general NASA media search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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