get_source_spectra

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

The description discloses that the default behavior returns a summary to avoid token overflow, and that verbose=True or format='csv' retrieves full data. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema, warning about potential large responses. However, it does not mention what happens for missing sources or any access restrictions, which would improve transparency given no 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?

The description is two sentences: one for purpose and one for behavior. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and default behavior, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, it omits mention of format='json' as another way to get full data, potentially creating confusion with the schema. It also lacks any information on edge cases such as no spectra found or performance implications for large sources.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds rationale for the default format ('to avoid token overflow') and reinforces the effect of verbose and csv, but it does not significantly add to the schema's existing parameter explanations. The mention of 'full spectral data' clarifies the purpose but not novel semantics.

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 'Retrieve spectra for a source' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_source_photometry or get_source_classifications. It is unambiguous about the tool's function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any excluding conditions. Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose, but no guidance is given for choosing this over related spectral data tools. The mention of token overflow provides some context but not usage direction.

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