Near-Earth Asteroids Feed

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds specific output fields (size, hazard, velocity, miss distance) and the date range limitation, which are not in annotations.

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?

One sentence efficiently conveys purpose, resource, data fields, and constraints. No wasted words. Front-loaded with key action.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand return data. No major gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, and the tool description adds 'max 7-day span' and 'default: start_date + 7 days', which clarify usage beyond the schema alone.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('near-Earth asteroid close approaches') and lists key data fields (size, hazard, velocity, miss distance). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'NASA NeoWs' source, which differs from JPL 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?

The description specifies a date range constraint ('max 7-day span') and default behavior, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this tool vs siblings. The agent would benefit from guidance on when to choose this over jpl.asteroids.approaches.

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