jpl_small_body

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the return categories: identity, orbital elements, physical parameters, and close approach data. This tells the agent what informational payload to expect, beyond the schema solely describing input. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but for a straightforward read-only lookup this is acceptable.

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 two sentences plus examples. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and input method, the second covers return content. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (identity, elements, physical properties, close approaches) and provides realistic examples. The readOnly annotation covers safety. There is no hidden complexity requiring further elaboration.

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 has full coverage (100%) including the parameter description and examples. The description's examples ('Apophis', '2023 DW') are also present in the schema property description, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action ('Look up') and resource ('asteroid/comet orbital data'), and the scope (by name, designation, or SPK-ID) distinguishes this from sibling tools like jpl_close_approaches which focus solely on close approach data. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 context is clear: use when you need orbital data for a known small body, with 'Apophis' or 'Bennu' as examples. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools like nasa_neo, but the usage situation is evident from the description and tool name.

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