nasa_exoplanet

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 fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only or mutative, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description only states what data is accessed, not how the tool behaves operationally.

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 without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple data access tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. The structure is front-loaded with the key information.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, and output expectations, which are critical for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description does not compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving significant gaps in 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 all 5 parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of valid 'table' names or 'where' clause syntax. However, since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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's purpose as accessing 'NASA Exoplanet Archive - data about planets beyond our solar system,' which specifies the resource (NASA Exoplanet Archive) and data domain (exoplanets). However, it lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'query' or 'retrieve') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'nasa_neo' or 'nasa_apod,' which also access NASA data but for different topics.

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 specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools that might handle related data (e.g., 'jpl_cad' for comet/asteroid data). Usage is implied only by the resource name, with no explicit instructions.

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