nasa_images

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 searching an archive but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search results look like (e.g., format, size limits). For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('search NASA's media archive') with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and gets straight to the point.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like result format, pagination, or error handling, and while the schema covers parameters, the description lacks context on how to effectively use the tool or interpret results, making it inadequate for full agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters (q, media_type, year_start, year_end, page) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain search syntax, media_type options, or pagination details), resulting in a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as searching NASA's media archive, which is a specific verb ('search') and resource ('NASA's media archive'). It distinguishes itself from most siblings (e.g., nasa_apod for astronomy pictures, nasa_mars_rover for Mars data) by focusing on general media search, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like nasa_cmr or nasa_gibs which might also involve media/data search.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools (e.g., nasa_apod for daily astronomy images or nasa_mars_rover for Mars-specific media), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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