generate_alert_download_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates code (rather than directly downloading) and explains what alert packets contain. However, it does not mention prerequisites, limitations, output format, or any potential side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear 'Use Case' bolded section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 (2 params, output schema present), the description provides enough context: clear purpose, detailed explanation of alert packets, and a specific use case. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that, so the description is complete enough for a code-generation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add explicit parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only implies the 'sources' parameter via 'multiple sources' and mentions cutouts in the context of alert packet contents, which indirectly relates to 'with_cutouts'.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate code to download ZTF alert packets for multiple sources.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling code-generation tools (e.g., generate_bulk_lightcurve_code) by focusing on raw alert packets and explicitly describing their contents.

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 'Use Case' line states when to use this tool ('when you need complete alert history...alert-level data that isn't available in forced photometry'). This provides clear context and an implicit alternative (forced photometry), though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use.

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