nasa_donki

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. However, the description only names the database without explaining what the tool does (e.g., whether it retrieves, searches, or lists data), what the output looks like, any rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. It fails to provide any behavioral traits beyond the name, leaving the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's 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 a single phrase that is under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load critical information (e.g., the tool's action) and wastes space by merely expanding the acronym 'donki'. A more helpful description would use this limited space to clarify the tool's purpose, but it fails to do so, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 (a database query tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral context. The description alone is inadequate for an agent to understand how to use this tool effectively, especially compared to more descriptive sibling tools.

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 all three parameters ('type', 'startDate', 'endDate'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it does not mention parameters at all. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Space Weather Database Of Notifications, Knowledge, Information' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'nasa_donki' (which stands for 'Database Of Notifications, Knowledge, Information'). It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'search', 'list') or what resource it operates on beyond the database name. While it hints at space weather events, it lacks a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'nasa_apod' or 'nasa_neo'.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. Given the sibling tools include various NASA data sources (e.g., 'nasa_apod' for astronomy pictures, 'nasa_neo' for near-Earth objects), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over others for space weather-related queries.

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