nasa_search_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful information not in the schema: the search is over NASA's 'public' library, returns 'compact metadata', and provides 'preview/original links and NASA media IDs'. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but the added context is meaningful.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and return contents. It is not verbose, but it does not fully earn its place by omitting usage guidance or parameter hints. Still, it is appropriately compact.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it states the search scope and return format, but does not cover pagination, parameter behavior, or when to prefer this over siblings. It is adequate but leaves gaps for the agent to infer.

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 description coverage is only 17% (only 'query' is described). The description does not describe page, limit, media_type, year_start, or year_end. The mention of 'image, video, and audio library' loosely hints at media_type, but the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('NASA's public image, video, and audio library'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nasa_media_asset by focusing on the search action over a broad media collection, and mentions return contents.

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 this tool is for searching the NASA media library, but provides no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of how it relates to nasa_media_asset or other NASA tools. The usage context is only weakly implied by the verb 'Search'.

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