ads_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the important authentication requirement (env var keys), which is real added value. It says nothing about rate limits, pagination, result format, or what happens with an invalid query, leaving significant gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, purpose front-loaded before the operational requirement. Nothing to trim.

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 simple 4-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth but omits anything about the shape of results (fields returned, ordering behavior) or error handling. Adequate but not complete.

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% and each parameter (query, sort, lang, max_results) is already documented with examples and defaults in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (NASA ADS academic papers), clearly identifying the tool as a literature search rather than a catalog/object lookup. However, it never names or contrasts itself with any sibling (e.g. simbad_query, ned_query, vizier_query), so an agent must infer that ADS is the bibliographic database and the others are object/catalog services.

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 establishes context (searching academic papers) and a hard prerequisite (ADS_DEV_KEY or ADS_API_KEY env var), which is actionable. But it gives no explicit guidance on when this tool should be chosen over the many sibling astronomy query tools, nor any exclusions.

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