nasa_space_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get ... reports', disclosing no additional behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or any restrictions. It does not go beyond what the tool name implies, leaving the agent without knowledge of side effects or output structure.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the subtypes. It is somewhat list-heavy but still compact and avoids redundant wording. It earns its place by packing all relevant report types into one readable line.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only says 'reports' without describing the response structure or any limitations. With 5 parameters, a bit more context about defaults or usage would help, but the tool is a simple read operation, so this is minimally adequate.

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 description adds meaning by listing all event_type enum values, which is not explicitly spelled out in the schema for the parameter. It also uses 'recent' to imply the time window controlled by days/start_date. However, limit and date format semantics are left to the schema, which already covers 60% of parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'NASA DONKI space-weather reports', then lists the nine report types, making it clear exactly what the tool returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nasa_apod and nasa_epic_earth by its unique domain (space weather).

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 the tool is for retrieving recent space-weather data and enumerates the event types, which tells the user what kind of information they can request. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though no direct alternative among siblings exists, so the context is clear.

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