search_objects

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

The description reveals that the tool returns a formatted table sorted by brightness, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or if it's read-only. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides only basic behavior information.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key filters, followed by output summary. Every word is functional; no redundancy or fluff.

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 functionality and output format adequately for a search tool of moderate complexity. However, it could elaborate on the return table structure or catalog scope, especially since there is no output schema. The tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, so slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond what is already documented in the parameter descriptions. The description restates filter criteria but does not clarify format or units 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 clearly states the tool searches and filters a celestial object catalog with specific criteria (type, constellation, magnitude, etc.) and returns a formatted table. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like lookup_object, the 'table of matching objects' implies a multi-result set, which distinguishes it from a single-object lookup.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (lookup_object, plan_session) or when not to use it. The description implies it's for broad searches, but lacks explicit context for choosing among siblings.

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