get_small_body

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields and source, but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavior is straightforward, but transparency is minimal beyond listing outputs.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and source, then list returns and pairing advice. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It lists key return fields and suggests a companion tool, but could be slightly more explicit about input formats.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'designation' parameter (e.g., format examples like number or name). The description compensates partially by stating it works for asteroids/comets, but leaves users to infer the input format.

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 it looks up physical and orbital parameters of asteroids/comets from JPL SBDB, listing specific return fields. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with get_ephemeris, but does not explicitly differentiate from other siblings like cone_search.

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?

Provides a concrete use case by suggesting pairing with get_ephemeris to answer both 'how big' and 'where', but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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