nds_get_decay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the data source (NUBASE2020) and explicitly enumerates the returned data fields, making it evident that this is a read-only retrieval operation. It does not mention edge cases like not-found behavior or units, but the description is sufficiently clear for a straightforward get tool.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler words. Every element (source, data types, isotopes) adds value and is directly relevant to tool selection and invocation.

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 2-parameter retrieval tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what data will be returned, and the data source. It could be slightly richer by specifying units or noting that all isomers are included, but it is complete for typical use cases.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (Z: atomic number, A: mass number) with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific nuances beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'decay information from NUBASE2020' and lists the exact data contents (half-life, spin/parity, decay modes with branching ratios, isomers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nds_get_mass or nds_get_separation_energy, which focus on different nuclear properties.

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 clearly implies the use case: when decay information for a nuclide is needed, as it states the data types returned. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear and distinct from sibling tools.

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