jpl_sbdb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions data retrieval but doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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—a single phrase that efficiently conveys the core purpose without waste. It's front-loaded with the key information (SBDB and data type), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral traits, usage context, or output details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to effectively invoke this tool in a complex environment.

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 100%, with clear parameter docs in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying search functionality through 'asteroid and comet data', but doesn't elaborate on usage examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation adequately.

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 accesses 'asteroid and comet data' from the 'Small-Body Database (SBDB)', specifying both the resource (SBDB) and data type (asteroid/comet). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'jpl_sentry' or 'nasa_neo' which also handle asteroid data, missing explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'jpl_sentry' (impact risk) and 'nasa_neo' (near-Earth objects), the description lacks context for selection, offering only a basic function statement without exclusions or recommendations.

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