get_survey_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool generates browsing URLs and that source_id auto-resolves coordinates. However, it does not mention authentication requirements (which appear in the schema), rate limits, or which surveys are considered 'common.' These gaps prevent a higher score, though the read-only nature is implied by 'Get URLs.'

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 exactly two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, the second gives input guidance. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it concise and well-structured.

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, a rich output schema, and well-described parameters, the description covers the essential input modes and purpose. It could name specific surveys or note that multiple URLs are returned, but the output schema likely handles return details. Overall, it is adequate for a straightforward retrieval 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including the mutual exclusivity of ra/dec versus source_id and the auto-resolution behavior. The description's sentence about providing either ra/dec or source_id largely duplicates schema content, adding minimal new semantic value.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get URLs to browse a sky position in common astronomical surveys.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on photometry, spectra, classifications, and other data retrieval. It also specifies two input modes (ra/dec or source_id).

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 guides the user to provide either ra/dec coordinates or a source_id, and explains that source_id auto-resolves coordinates from SkyPortal. However, it does not contrast this tool with alternatives like search_sources_near_position or get_source_photometry, so a user may not know when to prefer this tool over those.

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