mcp-server-ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying the translation mechanism ('via SIMBAD/NED') and the output format ('an ADS query'), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and expected results.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage instructions with examples. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage), the presence of annotations covering safety, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete. It adequately explains the tool's purpose, usage, and context without needing to detail parameters or return values, which are handled elsewhere.

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%, with the schema fully documenting the 'identifiers' parameter as a list of astronomical object identifiers. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implying that identifiers like 'M31' or 'Crab Nebula' are valid, which aligns with the schema's examples.

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 the specific action ('Translate astronomical object names to ADS search queries via SIMBAD/NED') and the resource ('astronomical object names'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'ads_search' by specifying it's for object name translation rather than general searching.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Provide object identifiers... and get back an ADS query that matches papers about those objects'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to use 'ads_search' instead.

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