nds_search_exfor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the search action, without mentioning return format, pagination, required fields, or any operational constraints. For a read-only search, it should at least indicate how results are returned or limited, but it does not.

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 with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and key filtering dimensions, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, one short sentence is insufficient. It lacks guidance on energy filters, result limits, output structure, and how it differs from similar EXFOR-related tools, making the description incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 36%, the description must compensate. It mentions target, projectile, reaction, and quantity, which maps to several parameters, but omits energy range (e_min/e_max) and kT range parameters, which are essential for MACS searches. The phrase 'including MACS' adds some value but doesn't explain the required kT inputs.

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 'Search EXFOR experimental reaction data points' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing this tool from generic search tools like nds_search by naming EXFOR and the data type. It also lists the key search facets (target/projectile/reaction/quantity) and explicitly includes MACS, which is a unique capability.

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 usage when EXFOR experimental reaction data points are needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like nds_get_exfor_entry or nds_get_cross_section_table. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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