cone_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses caps on radius and row_limit with a rationale ('protect free public services') and mentions unit-tagged columns. It does not detail authentication or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 concise with no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the purpose, followed by essential parameter details and constraints. Each sentence adds value.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, constraints, and output property (unit-tagged columns). It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'center' parameter format (name or RA DEC), 'catalog' options (Gaia or VizieR ID), and implies constraints for 'radius_deg' and 'row_limit'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Return catalog sources within a radius of a position,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like crossmatch by defining a cone search operation.

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 explains how to specify the center (object name or RA DEC), catalog (Gaia or VizieR ID), and includes radius/row limit caps. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though explicit 'when not to use' compared to siblings is absent.

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