nasa_donki

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not mention response format, pagination, default behavior when parameters are omitted, or any other operational characteristics. Since the annotation already handles the core safety trait, the description contributes little beyond that.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and the valid event types. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the response contains, but it does not mention the return shape or default date behavior. It is adequate for a simple query tool with clear parameters, but leaves gaps about expected results and default parameter handling.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds meaningful value by listing the full set of event types (CME, CMEAnalysis, GST, IPS, FLR, SEP, MPC, RBE, HSS, notifications), which is more complete than the schema's type description. This helps the agent understand valid values beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get space weather events from NASA DONKI') and lists the supported event types, clearly distinguishing it from other NASA tools like nasa_neo or nasa_mars_photos. It could be more explicit about the response being a list of events, but it is generally clear.

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 context—it is the tool for NASA DONKI space weather events—but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like swpc_alerts or swpc_kp_index. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the source name and type list.

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