Search Instruments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the versioning scope ("latest-versioned instances"), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, result size limits, or auth requirements. Adequate but leaves notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 short blocks, front-loaded with the core definition, no repetition or filler. Every sentence earns its place by either defining the resource, giving an example, or specifying when to use it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are documented. The description supplies the domain definition and example URN that an agent needs to interpret results. Only minor gaps remain around result ordering and empty-result behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with examples in the schema. The description alludes to instrument types and mission/spacecraft phrasing that maps to keywords, but adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (latest-versioned PDS Context products that are Instruments), then defines the domain term and gives a concrete example URN. An agent can distinguish this from search_instrument_hosts and search_targets purely from the description.

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?

"Use for queries about specific instruments, instrument types, or instruments on missions/spacecraft" gives clear triggering contexts, with each clause mapping loosely to the available parameters. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, e.g. routing host/spacecraft queries to search_instrument_hosts.

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