get_source_classifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (name, probability, who made classification), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential edge cases, error behavior, or any side effects, though as a read operation this is less critical. The description adds some behavioral context but not extensive detail.

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 two concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and fluff, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and output.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete enough: it states the purpose and the key components of the response. It does not need to explain return structure since the output schema likely covers that. Minor gap: no mention of empty results or authorization, but not essential for this type of 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%, and the schema's description for source_name is already detailed, including examples and accepted identifier forms. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve' and resource 'classifications for a source', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_source_photometry or get_source_spectra. It also specifies what is returned (classification name, probability, and classifier), adding precision beyond the name.

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 (when you need classifications for a source) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear, but there is no direct guidance compared to other get_source_* tools.

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