jpl_fireball

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. The description only states what the data is ('fireball data - atmospheric impact events') without explaining how the tool behaves—such as whether it queries a database, returns historical or real-time data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 extremely concise ('Fireball data - atmospheric impact events'), consisting of a single phrase that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no redundant or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity of querying fireball data with three parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to effectively invoke the tool. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but other aspects remain underspecified, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'limit', 'date_min', and 'date_max'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining default behaviors or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the well-documented schema.

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 'Fireball data - atmospheric impact events' clearly indicates this tool retrieves data about fireballs (atmospheric impact events). It specifies the resource ('fireball data') and the domain ('atmospheric impact events'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly state the action verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'query') or differentiate from sibling tools like 'nasa_neo' or 'jpl_sentry' which might also handle impact-related data.

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 any specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'jpl_sentry' or 'nasa_neo' that might handle similar impact data. Without such information, an agent 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.