nds_get_charge_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions source-aware comparison and mode-based recommendation vs full source list, adding context beyond the name. However, it does not describe the return format, edge cases (e.g., CODATA unavailable), or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some behavioral traits 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It avoids redundancy and every sentence adds meaningful information. The mode control is explained efficiently without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and mode behavior for a simple query tool. It does not explain return values or uncertainties, but given the straightforward nature of a charge radius lookup and the clarity of the description, it is reasonably complete. A dedicated note on output format would elevate it, but not critically needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a clarifying sentence about mode=best|all|compare controlling recommendation vs full source list, but this largely mirrors the schema's enum descriptions. No additional semantic detail is provided for Z or A beyond what the schema already includes.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and a unique resource ('nuclear charge radius (rms)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing source-aware comparison across IAEA, laser spectroscopy, and CODATA. The mode parameter is explicitly mentioned, further clarifying the scope.

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 implied context about when to use this tool—for nuclear charge radius data—but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or list exclusions. The mode explanation (best/all/compare) offers usage guidance for parameter options, not tool selection. This is clear but not fully explicit in differentiating from sibling tools.

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