nasa_gibs

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 only states what the tool accesses (satellite imagery) without detailing operational traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, output format (e.g., image URL vs. raw data), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 with a single phrase ('Global Imagery Browse Services - satellite imagery'), front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by identifying the service and resource, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output (e.g., image URL or data), usage context, and differentiation from siblings. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to effectively invoke the tool beyond basic parameter input.

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 all parameters (layer, date, format, resolution). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples for layer names or resolution ranges. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Global Imagery Browse Services - satellite imagery' clearly states the tool's purpose: accessing satellite imagery through NASA's GIBS system. It specifies the resource (satellite imagery) and service (GIBS), but lacks a specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like nasa_images or nasa_epic, which also provide imagery.

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 doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like nasa_images and nasa_epic offering similar imagery services, the agent has no basis for choosing between them.

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