nds_find_nuclide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns basic properties from NUBASE2020, implying a read-only lookup. However, it does not explain how multiple criteria are combined, whether multiple matches are returned, or what 'basic properties' includes, leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose immediately and states the data source, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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?

For a simple search tool with three well-described parameters, the description covers the core purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits important context such as the output format, how criteria are combined, and whether results are singular or plural. This is a moderate gap for an agent deciding whether this tool meets a query.

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?

The schema already describes each parameter (A, Z, element) with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explicitly using 'and/or', clarifying that the parameters are optional, flexible filters rather than requiring all to be provided. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource ('nuclides'), and clearly defines the search scope by element symbol, Z, and/or A. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nds_get_mass or nds_search, which target different aspects of nuclear data.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to find nuclides by basic identifiers and retrieve basic properties. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as nds_get_mass or nds_search, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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