crossmatch

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains the core matching behavior, limit of 50 targets, and output (matches with separation and unmatched targets). Missing details like rate limits or idempotency, but adequate.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, efficient with no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: operation, inputs, output types, and constraint. Minor missing details like allowed catalog values, but overall complete enough.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It explains 'tolerance_arcsec' well, but 'catalog' parameter is not explained (only default 'gaia'), and 'targets' is moderately explained. Incomplete parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the action (match target names to nearest catalog source), explains the process (resolve to position, find nearest within tolerance), and distinguishes from siblings like resolve_object (single object) and cone_search (spatial search).

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?

Implied usage for matching multiple target names to a catalog, but no explicit when/why not or alternative comparison. The 50-target limit is mentioned, but lacks guidance on when to use crossmatch vs resolve_object or cone_search.

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