nasa_eonet

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, or default status filtering. The annotation covers the read-only safety aspect, but the description fails to provide any additional operational details.

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, with the main purpose clearly front-loaded. The category list is compact and informative. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 params, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what the return data looks like or mention default behavior (like status defaulting to 'open'), but it does not. It lists categories but lacks details on response structure or how filters interact.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (limit, status, category). The description's category list slightly expands on the schema's examples but adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema already communicates. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get Earth natural events from NASA EONET.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the category list (wildfires, severeStorms, volcanoes, etc.) adds useful scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling NASA tools, but the uniqueness is fairly obvious.

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 category list implies when to use the tool (e.g., to retrieve wildfire or earthquake events), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over other event sources or what status values mean. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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