jpl_sentry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides 'data' but doesn't describe what format the data comes in (e.g., structured risk metrics, tables, or raw API responses), whether it's real-time or cached, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with 10 parameters and 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a data retrieval tool and front-loaded with the key information. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's a query/retrieval tool rather than just 'data'.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like (critical since there's no output schema), how results are formatted, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or default behaviors when parameters are omitted. For a tool with rich filtering options, more context about typical use patterns would be helpful.

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%, so all 10 parameters are documented in the schema with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Maximum number of results to return', 'Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 provides 'NEO Earth impact risk assessment data' from JPL Sentry, which is a specific purpose with a defined resource (NEO risk data). It distinguishes from siblings like 'jpl_cad' (close approach data) or 'nasa_neo' (general NEO data) by focusing specifically on impact risk assessment. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the verb 'retrieve' or 'query', leaving the action slightly 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. With siblings like 'jpl_sbdb' (small body database) and 'nasa_neo' (general NEO data), there's no indication of when Sentry's specialized risk assessment data is preferred over broader NEO tools. No context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions is mentioned.

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