alma_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing beyond the basic operation. It does not disclose that this is a read-only archive lookup, what the result payload looks like, whether pagination/max_results truncation applies, or any rate limits. A mutation-free query is implied, but nothing is explicitly stated.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and lookup modes come first. Nothing is wasted and it is easy to scan.

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 6-parameter tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the most important ambiguity unaddressed: whether target and ra/dec are alternatives or combinable, and what a result set represents. Given the fully described schema, an agent can construct a call, but the description does not resolve the coordination gap left by having no required parameters.

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%, so every parameter (ra, dec, radius, target, lang, max_results) is already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description echoes the target-vs-coordinates distinction but adds no format, default, or mutual-exclusivity detail 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 names a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('ALMA archive'), and even expands the acronym so the agent knows which observatory's data this covers. It also states the two accepted lookup modes (object name or coordinates). It stops short of differentiating itself from the many other archive/cone-search siblings such as ned_query, simbad_query, or esasky_query.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like simbad_query (name resolution) or ned_query, nor any prerequisite guidance. The phrase 'by object name or coordinates' hints at input modes but does not tell the agent which mode to prefer or that the two are mutually exclusive. Usage is only implied.

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