resolve_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return data: coordinates, object type, cross-identifiers, properties with units and provenance. However, it doesn't mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a query tool this is reasonable.

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 efficient: one sentence for purpose, then a sentence summarizing outputs, and a final sentence for usage guidance. No wasted words, and key points are front-loaded.

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 only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input hints, output summary. It could mention handling of ambiguous names, but overall it's complete enough for a simple query 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by giving examples of valid inputs ('SIMBAD-style names like 'Vega', 'M31', or catalog ids'), which helps the agent understand what to provide beyond the schema's plain string type.

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 'Resolve an astronomical object name or identifier to normalized data' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'This is usually the first call: downstream tools take the returned RA/Dec', making it clear as a starting point.

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?

It provides when to use (first call) and examples of input names ('Vega', 'M31'). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context with sibling tools and the phrase 'usually the first call' gives good guidance.

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