eso_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, result pagination, or what the response contains. For a 7-parameter archive query with no output schema, this is a substantial gap, mitigated only by the fact that a read-only archive query is inherently low-risk.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that it underspecifies rather than over-explains.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin: it does not explain how target/coordinates/instrument combine, how RA-DEC-radius relate, or what results look like. An agent would need to inspect the schema and guess at behavior to invoke this correctly.

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 all 7 parameters are already documented with units and defaults. The description names the three query dimensions (target, instrument, coordinates) but adds no syntax, mutual-exclusion, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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) and resource (ESO European Southern Observatory science archive), plus the query dimensions (target, instrument, coordinates). It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings by naming the ESO archive, though it does not contrast itself against the many other archive queries (alma_query, mast_query, ned_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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the crowded sibling set of archive queries. The three query modes hint at usage but do not tell an agent when ESO is the right archive versus esasky_query or alma_query.

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