nasa_neo

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 it's a 'Web Service' but doesn't describe what kind of information is returned (e.g., orbital data, close approaches, physical characteristics), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 states the service name and purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded by specifying the exact type of information provided (e.g., 'retrieves orbital and close-approach data for asteroids') to immediately clarify scope.

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 asteroid data retrieval, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how results are structured, or how this tool differs from similar JPL tools. For a 3-parameter tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed for effective agent 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%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the generic 'asteroid search' context. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact (e.g., whether asteroid_id overrides date ranges).

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 providing 'information about asteroids' through a 'Near Earth Object Web Service', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jpl_sbdb' (Small-Body Database) or 'jpl_sentry' (impact risk assessment) that might also provide asteroid information, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. With multiple NASA and JPL sibling tools available (like jpl_sbdb for detailed asteroid data or jpl_sentry for impact risks), there's no indication of this tool's specific use case, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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