esasky_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, return format, pagination behavior, or what happens with the 'all' mission option. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, though it could benefit from more structure given the tool's complexity.

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 query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain return format, result limits behavior, mission defaults, or how results are structured. An agent would need to guess at important behavioral aspects.

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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters including enums and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 ('Query'), resource ('ESASky archive for astronomical observations'), and method ('by position and radius'). This is clear and specific, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like mast_query or heasarc_query that could do similar positional searches.

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 the many sibling archive query tools (mast_query, heasarc_query, irsa_query, etc.). The positional/radius approach is implied but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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