APIbase

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the authoritative data source (NASA JPL CNEOS) and implies read-only behavior via 'Get', but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Perfect efficiency: single sentence, front-loaded action verb, zero filler. The em-dash construction elegantly separates the operation from the data payload details without requiring additional sentences.

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?

Strong for a retrieval tool with no output schema: identifies the authoritative source (NASA JPL CNEOS) and previews the return data fields. Lacks only rate limit or authentication context to be fully complete for an external API wrapper.

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 description coverage, baseline is 3. The description mentions 'atmospheric entry energy' which adds semantic context for the energy_min parameter, but largely relies on the schema's existing documentation for date formats and sort options.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Get' is a clear verb, 'fireball (bolide) events' identifies the resource, and the em-dash lists exact data fields (energy, velocity, altitude, coordinates). The NASA JPL CNEOS attribution distinguishes it from sibling asteroid/orbital tools like jpl.asteroids.approaches.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., jpl.asteroids.sentry for impact hazards or nasa.asteroids.feed for near-earth objects). While the domain is clear from the description, there are no when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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