nasa_epic

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. It mentions 'views of Earth' but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 phrase with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than concise, as it lacks essential details about the tool's function, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 a NASA data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand its use.

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 the schema fully documents the parameters (collection and date). The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters, such as example values or usage tips, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 'Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera - views of Earth' identifies the resource (Earth images from EPIC) but lacks a specific verb or action, making the purpose vague. It does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, list, or analyze images), and it does not differentiate from siblings like 'nasa_images' or 'nasa_gibs'.

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. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection among the many NASA-related siblings.

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