nds_get_radiation_spectrum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does reveal that the output contains both discrete lines and continuous-spectrum summaries, which is non-obvious and useful, but it does not discuss read-only safety, result size, pagination, or any limitations beyond that content detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's core function, data source, and output content with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise and structured.

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?

The schema fully documents all parameters, and the description adequately covers the core output content and scope, making the tool's purpose and invocation sufficiently clear. However, the absence of an output schema or annotations means a brief mention of return structure or usage caveats would make it more complete, but this is not a critical gap.

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% for all 7 parameters, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. It mentions radiation types and summary nature, which loosely relates to the 'type' parameter, but it does not explain any parameter in a way that is not already in the schema.

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 states the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'decay radiation spectra from JENDL-5 Decay', and further clarifies the scope by enumerating radiation types (gamma/beta/alpha/X-ray) and output forms (discrete lines and continuous-spectrum summaries). This explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools like nds_query_gammas or nds_get_decay, which focus on different aspects of decay 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 the tool should be used when decay radiation spectra are needed, but it offers no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool recommendations. The context is clear only through the tool's purpose, not through explicit comparative guidance.

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