nds_query_decay_feedings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the return contents but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or behaves differently for invalid nuclides. The query nature is implied but not explicitly stated as safe.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and expected outputs. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 query tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately names the returned data types. It is slightly incomplete on usage scenarios and safety, but the core behavior is well covered.

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%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds context by framing Z/A as 'parent nuclide' and linking to decay modes, but it does not provide new syntax or format details beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'Query' with a clear resource ('beta/EC decay feeding patterns from ENSDF') and lists concrete returned data (branching ratios, log(ft), endpoint energies). This distinguishes it from siblings like nds_get_decay or nds_query_levels.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nds_get_decay or nds_query_gammas. The description states what it does but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts.

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