nasa_power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what data is provided without mentioning any behavioral traits: no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, response time, error conditions, or what format the 'prediction' actually takes. For a data retrieval tool with 7 parameters, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 at just 7 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't contain any unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place by establishing the tool's domain and data type.

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 a 7-parameter meteorological data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'prediction' means in this context, what timeframes or resolutions are available, what the output looks like, or any limitations of the data. For a tool that presumably returns complex meteorological predictions, more contextual information is needed.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'RE, SB, AG' communities represent, what meteorological parameters are available, or provide examples of valid parameter combinations. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Prediction of Worldwide Energy Resources - meteorological data', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on energy resource predictions rather than astronomy, imagery, or other NASA data domains. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential meteorological data tools within the NASA suite.

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 data tools available (like nasa_cmr, nasa_firms, nasa_gibs), there's no indication of when meteorological energy resource data is preferable to other environmental or imagery data sources. The description offers no context about use cases or exclusions.

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