nasa_donki_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] space weather events', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loads the key information ('Get space weather events'). Every part of the sentence contributes value by specifying the what and where.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. Without annotations or output schema, users must rely on the description alone, which doesn't fully address these gaps despite the clear parameter documentation in the schema.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (event_type with enum details, start_date, end_date). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 space weather events from NASA DONKI (Database Of Notifications, Knowledge, Information)'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('space weather events'), and provides context about the source (NASA DONKI). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (nasa_apod, nasa_epic_earth_imagery, etc.), which all access NASA data but for different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tools or any specific scenarios where this tool is preferred (e.g., for space weather analysis vs. general NASA data). Without such context, users must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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