Search Targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It establishes that this is a read/search operation and clarifies the domain vocabulary, but says nothing about matching semantics, pagination, result ordering, or empty-result behavior. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but other traits remain undisclosed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the definition and usage guidance. The Mars URN example is compact and genuinely useful for grounding the identifier format; overall there is very little waste.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to establish domain and usage, which it does well, including a canonical identifier example. The remaining gap is behavioral (pagination/result limits) rather than conceptual.

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 limit, keywords, and target_type are already fully documented in the schema, including the resource://target_type reference. The description's mention of 'finding targets by type' and the Mars URN example add domain flavor but no syntax or format beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Search PDS Context products that are Targets') and then defines the resource domain ('planets, moons, asteroids, comets') with a concrete URN example. This definitional detail implicitly separates it from siblings like search_instruments and search_investigations, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 final sentence gives clear usage contexts: queries about specific celestial bodies, finding targets by type, or targets studied by missions. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use this one, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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