get_tns_summary

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool aggregates and formats all relevant data, including source ID, photometry, classification, and host galaxy. It also states that it accepts any source identifier. It does not mention auth or read-only status, but for a summary tool the behavior is sufficiently clear.

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 somewhat long but well-structured with bullet points and a dedicated usage section. Every section adds value: the summary purpose, data list, accepted identifiers, and when-to-use guidance. No redundant filler; the length is justified by the need to differentiate from many sibling tools.

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 tool's full scope—what data it retrieves, why it is the preferred choice, and when to use it. Given that an output schema exists, return values need not be detailed. The description is complete for a complex aggregating tool with one parameter.

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 already describes the source_name parameter, but the description adds valuable context by listing accepted identifier types (SkyPortal obj_id, ZTF name, TNS name) with examples. This goes beyond what the schema provides and clarifies acceptable input formats.

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 it generates a complete TNS/AstroNote report and lists specific data categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_source_photometry and get_source_spectra. The verb 'generate' plus the resource 'TNS/AstroNote report' makes the purpose specific and actionable.

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 provides a 'When to use' section with exact user intents (e.g., 'create/generate/write TNS report') and explicit 'Do NOT' guidance to avoid using multiple separate tools. This strongly steers tool selection and prevents misuse.

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