search_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. It mentions the tool searches and returns results, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and an output schema.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return values. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return structure. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which slightly reduces completeness for agent decision-making.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'query' accepts search terms with examples ('apollo 11', 'mars', 'hubble') and 'media_type' specifies types like 'image', 'video', or 'audio'. This clarifies parameter usage effectively, though it doesn't cover all possible nuances like format constraints or default behavior for 'media_type'.

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 searches NASA's image and video library, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('NASA's image and video library'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_astronomy_photo' or 'query_nasa' by specifying it's for searching images/videos/audio rather than fetching specific photos or general queries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 like 'get_astronomy_photo' or 'query_nasa'. It mentions the tool's function but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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