nds_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that only ground-state nuclides are returned, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as how stable nuclides are handled (null half_life_seconds and exclusion from half-life searches), which is only mentioned in the schema. Limits, sorting, or pagination are not described. This is a partial disclosure.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes: it specifies the search type, property examples, and result focus. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 provides the core purpose and return focus, but lacks details about the output format since there is no output schema. It does not explain whether results are a list, how they are sorted, or what fields each nuclide contains. Given the tool's complexity (six parameters, multiple properties) and the absence of an output schema, the description is not fully complete for an agent to confidently infer expected results.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions the two property names, but the schema already defines an enum that includes these and aliases. The min/max and Z_min/Z_max are well-documented in the schema. The description does not clarify the relationship between the property aliases or the range semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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: searching nuclides by property range, with specific examples of properties (half_life_seconds, mass_excess_keV). It also clarifies that it returns ground-state nuclides, which narrows the scope and helps distinguish it from other search tools. The verb 'Search' and resource 'nuclides' are specific, and the scope is well-defined.

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 use for property-range searches, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like nds_find_nuclide or nds_query. It lacks exclusions or guidance on choosing between search methods. The context is clear enough for a basic understanding, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is provided.

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