get_source_observability

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 that source_id auto-resolves RA/Dec from SkyPortal, that source_id requires authentication (also in schema), and warns about the alternative endpoint's PDF output. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover all edge cases or output details.

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 and well-structured: three short paragraphs that front-load the purpose, then give explicit usage directives, and finally summarize input modes. No unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 output schema exists and parameter descriptions are thorough, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what not to use, and how to provide inputs. The only omission (detailed return format) is properly deferred to the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The main description adds semantic value by clarifying the either/or relationship between source_id and ra/dec, which is not explicitly stated in the schema, and by emphasizing the 'all telescopes' option.

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 'Compute' with the resource 'observing windows' and the scope 'from specified telescopes', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like photometry or spectra. It also states 'USE THIS TOOL for all observability questions', which reinforces its unique role.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS TOOL for all observability questions' and instructs against using the /api/sources/{id}/observability endpoint, explaining that it returns an unparsable PDF. It also provides clear input-mode guidance: provide either source_id or ra/dec.

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