aavso_query_star

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the lookup action. It says nothing about read-only semantics, whether name matching is exact or fuzzy, behavior when the star is unknown, rate limits, or what data is returned.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the data source and the lookup key with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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 2-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows what to pass but not what comes back (VSX fields, ephemeris/period data) or how failures present. Some return-value context would round it out.

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 100%: star_name, its example values, and the lang enum with default are all documented in the schema. The description adds only 'by name', which is already implied, so it neither compensates nor detracts. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Query), a specific resource (AAVSO VSX / Variable Star Index), and a clear scope ('a specific variable star by name'). This implicitly separates it from the region-based sibling aavso_query_region, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer aavso_query_region or the other catalog tools (simbad_query, vizier_query) instead, and no prerequisites noted. The phrase 'by name' is the only implied usage condition.

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