apophis_demo

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions combining SBDB, Horizons, and literature with full provenance, but does not disclose potential constraints like rate limits, latency, or error handling. The 'demo' label hints at possible limitations but is vague.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the key features. It is efficient, though the first sentence is slightly cryptic. Overall, it earns its length.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality for a demo. It specifies the data sources and provenance, making it complete enough for its specialized scope.

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 single parameter 'with_paper' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not clarify its effect. While it might be inferred from the context of 'what is the latest paper', the description adds no explicit meaning beyond the schema.

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: it is a composite tool for asteroid Apophis, providing its size, 2029 close approach, and latest paper in one call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a specialized one-stop query for Apophis, combining multiple sources.

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 implies usage when a user wants quick, curated Apophis data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_small_body or object_dossier. No exclusions or caveats are provided.

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