nasa_osdr_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get data files' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 key information ('NASA OSDR - Get data files for an OSD study'). There's no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'data files' entail, how results are returned, or differentiate this from other NASA tools. For a retrieval tool in a crowded namespace, more context is needed to guide effective 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 the single parameter 'accession_number' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's for an OSD study, which is already covered by the tool name and description context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get data files') and resource ('for an OSD study'), specifying it's for NASA OSDR. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (like nasa_apod, nasa_images, etc.), which all appear to be NASA data retrieval tools, so it misses sibling differentiation.

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-related sibling tools (e.g., nasa_apod, nasa_images, nasa_neo), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific tool over others.

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