get_exoplanet_data

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 describes what the tool does (fetching data) and lists parameters, but lacks behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response structure. For a data-fetching tool with external API dependencies, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point-like 'Args' section that efficiently details each parameter with examples and options. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with a brief usage hint.

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 and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., network dependencies, error cases) and output details. For a tool fetching data from an external archive with multiple parameters, this leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle failures.

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 fully. It adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains each parameter's purpose ('query' for filtering with syntax examples, 'table' with common options and explanations, 'format' with options and default), providing clear semantics that the schema lacks. This effectively documents all three parameters.

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 data from NASA's Exoplanet Archive.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('data from NASA's Exoplanet Archive'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (which focus on asteroids, Earth, Mars, solar events, etc.), though the domain difference is implicit.

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 common table options but doesn't explain scenarios for choosing 'exoplanets' over 'cumulative' or other tables, nor does it reference sibling tools or broader context for data selection. Usage is implied through parameter details but not explicitly stated.

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