get_coronal_mass_ejection

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 only states that the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, data format, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 purpose stated first followed by parameter details. It uses bullet points for clarity and avoids unnecessary information. However, the 'Args:' section could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks context about the data returned, error cases, or how it fits with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral details would improve 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 description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains both parameters ('start_date' and 'end_date'), specifies their format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), and provides default values ('30 days before current date' and 'current date'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 coronal mass ejection (CME) data.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('coronal mass ejection data'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_solar_flare' or 'get_geomagnetic_storm', which are related solar/space weather tools.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools, context for CME data retrieval, or any prerequisites. The only implicit usage hint is the date parameters, but this doesn't help the agent choose between similar tools.

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