get_source_photometry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output format (CSV), that it returns all photometry points, and details the column structure for both mag and flux formats. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention error handling or performance limits.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by column lists for each format. It is concise but includes necessary detail about output formats. The length is appropriate and front-loaded, avoiding wasteful repetition.

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 (4 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (columns), the description is complete in explaining the output and basic behavior. It lacks explicit usage guidance or edge-case behavior, but for a retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 adds value by explaining how the format parameter affects the output columns (mag vs flux), and clarifies the default values. It also enumerates the exact returned columns, which enriches understanding of the filters and magsys parameters.

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 tool retrieves photometry for a source as a CSV table, with specific verb and resource. It lists exact columns for mag and flux formats, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_source_spectra or get_source_classifications.

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 for retrieving photometry but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to use this versus other source tools. It lacks exclusions or guidance on when not to use it, so it's only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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