nds_query_gammas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the return fields, which adds value, but does not disclose filtering capabilities, output structure, pagination, or any limits/caveats. The behavior is partially transparent but leaves key usage details unmentioned.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and target. It includes essential return information without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 description covers the core purpose and return types, which is sufficient given the high schema coverage. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention the limit parameter or filter options, leaving minor gaps for a complete picture.

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 high (83%), so the schema already explains most parameters (Z, A, energy filters). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'for a nuclide', which maps to Z/A. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, baseline 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 ('Query') and resource ('gamma-ray transitions from ENSDF'), and explicitly lists the returned data types (energies, intensities, multipolarities, conversion coefficients). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nds_query_levels and nds_query_decay_feedings, which target different 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 provides clear context: it is used for querying gamma-ray transitions from ENSDF for a nuclide, implying the need for Z and A. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined by the query target.

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