jpl_fireball

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already declared. The description adds useful context about the data source (DoD/DoE satellite sensors) and included fields (date, location, velocity, energy, altitude), but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.

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 three sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, definition, data fields, and usage example. No wasted words.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (fields listed), how to use it (example), and its source. It could mention pagination or behavior with no date range, but the schema and annotations already handle defaults and safety. Adequate for the complexity.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including formats and the limit default. The description's example (date_min='2024-01-01', date_max='2024-12-31') marginally reinforces usage but does not add significant 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 states 'Get reported fireball/bolide events from US Government sensors' with a specific verb and resource, and adds clarifying context about what fireballs are. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jpl_close_approaches, which focus on near-Earth objects.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to retrieve fireball events) and provides a concrete example with date parameters, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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