nasa_neo_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially important since there's no output schema).

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., asteroid names, sizes, distances), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain date range constraints beyond 'within a date range'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Near Earth Objects (asteroids) passing near Earth within a date range'. It specifies the exact scope (asteroids passing near Earth) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like NASA APOD or Mars rover photos, which serve completely 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 implies usage for retrieving asteroid data within a date range, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other asteroid-related tools (though none are listed among siblings).

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