get_asteroid_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'look up,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like data source, potential rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and parameter details following in a structured 'Args:' section. There's no wasted text, but the parameter explanation could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but omits critical context like return values, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a lookup tool with no structured metadata, this leaves users guessing about the tool's full behavior and output.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It specifies that 'asteroid_id' is an 'Asteroid ID in the NASA JPL small body (SPK-ID) system,' which provides context not in the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, with only one parameter, the baseline is high, and this addition is adequate but not comprehensive (e.g., no examples or format details).

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: 'Look up a specific asteroid based on its NASA JPL ID.' This specifies the verb ('look up'), resource ('asteroid'), and key identifier ('NASA JPL ID'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_asteroids' or 'get_asteroids_feed', which might offer broader or different asteroid data access.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the 'asteroid_id' parameter but doesn't explain scenarios where this lookup is preferred over sibling tools (e.g., 'browse_asteroids' for lists or 'get_asteroids_feed' for updates). Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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