APIbase

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what data fields are returned (distance, velocity, size) and sorting behavior, but omits safety/disruption traits, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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?

Single, dense sentence using em-dash to separate action from return values. Every clause earns its place: action, scope, data fields, functionality, and source attribution. No waste.

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?

For a 6-parameter query tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description successfully conveys the domain model (close approaches) and key filters. Could improve by indicating the return structure (list/array of approaches).

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping abstract parameters to semantic concepts: 'distance' (dist_max), 'size' (h_max), 'velocity' (sort options), clarifying the physical meaning behind the schema fields.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'asteroid close approaches' + scope 'upcoming and past'. The parenthetical '(NASA JPL)' distinguishes it from sibling 'nasa.asteroids.feed', and the focus on 'close approaches' distinguishes from 'jpl.bodies.lookup' and 'jpl.asteroids.sentry'.

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 use cases by listing returned data types (distance, velocity, size) and temporal scope, but lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance comparing it to 'jpl.asteroids.sentry' or 'nasa.asteroids.feed'.

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