nasa_neo_detail

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is already declared. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as return format, request limitations, or whether all details are included. It aligns with annotations, but adds minimal value.

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?

A single, clear sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Exceptionally concise while still specific.

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 simple single-parameter input, high schema coverage, and readOnly hint, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't explain the structure of the returned detail, but no output schema exists, and this is a straightforward detail retrieval.

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 covers 100% of the only parameter with a description ('NEO asteroid ID from nasa_neo results'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get detailed information' and identifies the resource as 'a specific Near-Earth Object by asteroid ID'. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nasa_neo which lists objects, and jpl_small_body which also provides details but by different parameters.

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?

Implies usage when an asteroid ID is available, especially referencing 'from nasa_neo results' in the parameter schema. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this instead of similar detail tools like jpl_small_body, nor exclude alternatives.

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