nasa_neo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states it provides 'information' without detailing aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. It lacks critical behavioral traits needed for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's general purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, how to interpret results, or the tool's behavior in different scenarios (e.g., using asteroid_id with dates), leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 (start_date, end_date, asteroid_id) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., that asteroid_id can be used optionally for specific lookups) or additional constraints.

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 states the tool provides 'information about asteroids' using the 'Near Earth Object Web Service', which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of information (e.g., search results, details) or the exact operation (e.g., search, lookup). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'nasa_apod' but not clearly from other asteroid-related tools like 'jpl_sbdb' or 'jpl_sentry'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving it unclear how it differs from sibling tools such as 'jpl_sbdb' (which might also handle asteroid data) or when date ranges versus asteroid IDs are appropriate.

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