ztf_lightcurve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and external-service behavior are covered. The description adds useful content context – per-band summary, magpsf and magpsf_corr detections, non-detection limit – but doesn't mention failure modes, latency, or what happens for objects with no ZTF coverage.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the data source and object, then lists return components. No filler, though the parenthetical field names are slightly dense.

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 structure needn't be explained, yet the description usefully sketches its contents; annotations cover the safety profile and the single param is exemplified. Remaining gaps (behavior on empty results, oid sourcing) are minor for a read-only fetch 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?

With a single param and 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it explains that oid is a ZTF object identifier and gives a concrete example format. It doesn't say where to obtain the id or any validation constraints, keeping it short of a 5.

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 resource (ZTF light curve from ALeRCE) with a concrete oid example ('ZTF26acatcla') and enumerates the returned components. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like tess_known and ztf_objects_near by being the per-object photometry fetch, but it doesn't name any sibling 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 example oid implies when the tool applies (an object already identified with a ZTF id), but there's no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives like tess_known or ztf_objects_near. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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