get_asteroids_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 7-day limit for the feed, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on other traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of the returned list (e.g., pagination, data fields). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section that explains parameters efficiently. There's no wasted text, and the information is organized for quick comprehension, though it could be slightly more polished in formatting.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic context like purpose and parameter semantics. However, it's incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of asteroids: it doesn't describe the output format, potential errors, or other behavioral aspects. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to fully understand 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'start_date' and 'end_date' are defined as dates for asteroid search in YYYY-MM-DD format, and it explains that the 'end_date' defaults to 7 days after 'start_date' if not specified, with a 7-day limit. This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases or validation rules.

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: 'Get a list of asteroids based on their closest approach date to Earth.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('list of asteroids'), and key criterion ('closest approach date to Earth'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'browse_asteroids' or 'get_asteroid_lookup,' which might offer different asteroid-related functionalities.

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 by mentioning the date-based search and a 7-day limit, suggesting it's for retrieving asteroids approaching Earth within a specific timeframe. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browse_asteroids' or 'get_asteroid_lookup,' nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites beyond the date constraints.

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