Asteroides cercanos a la Tierra

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating the date range limit ('hasta 7 días') and the sorting behavior ('Ordena por cercanía'), which are not captured in annotations or schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The description front-loads the action and resource, then adds constraints and usage context efficiently.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, constraints, and usage context. It lacks return-format details (e.g., fields, units), but the task is simple and no output schema is present, so only a slight gap.

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 coverage is 100%: both fecha_inicio and fecha_fin are described with patterns and the 7-day constraint. The description reinforces the 7-day limit but adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 lists near-Earth asteroids (NeoWs) for a date range, with a specific verb ('Lista') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on asteroids, approaches, and NEOs, which is immediately apparent.

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 explicitly says to use it for 'acercamientos, NEOs o si hay algún asteroide relevante', providing clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are topically distinct enough that exclusions are implied.

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