fermi_lat_catalog_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, but it discloses very little: no cone search semantics, default radius (5 degrees), max_results (50), energy filtering behavior, or output format. For an 8-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, 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?

A single, highly efficient sentence that front-loads the essential context (version and catalog). No wasted words.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks cone-search behavior, default radius/max_results implications, energy units and filtering, and how it differs from fermi_lat_adql. An agent would need to infer much to call it 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 the schema already documents each parameter including defaults and ranges. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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) and resource (Fermi LAT point source catalog), and identifies the catalog version (4FGL-DR4, 14-year) which distinguishes it from a generic catalog. However it doesn't distinguish the tool from its sibling fermi_lat_adql, which likely queries the same catalog differently.

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 only states what the tool does, with no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't tell the agent when to use this cone-search-style query versus the sibling fermi_lat_adql, nor when each spatial parameter (target vs ra/dec vs radius) is appropriate.

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