heasarc_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 is a single sentence. It omits rate limits, whether the search is a positional cross-match against a specific mission table, whether results are truncated, and what the response contains. A read-only archive query is low-risk, but the description still underspecifies behavior for an agent to call it confidently.

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 the verb, resource, and acronym expansion. No filler, no repetition of schema content, every clause earns its place.

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 five-parameter astronomy archive query with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least clarify that this is a positional cone search against a chosen mission table and what the mission default ('xmmmaster') implies. It leaves the agent to infer behavior from sibling tools and defaults, which is inadequate given the domain complexity.

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% with all five parameters documented (lang, radius, mission, max_results, object_name), so the baseline is 3. The description echoes 'object name and mission catalog' but adds no format guidance, default rationale, or valid radius/mission semantics beyond what the schema already supplies.

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) plus the resource (HEASARC), spells out the acronym, and names the two selection axes (object name, mission catalog). This clearly distinguishes it from a generic query, but it does not differentiate it from cone-search siblings like simbad_query, ned_query, or vizier_query which operate on the same inputs.

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 indication of when to prefer HEASARC over the many sibling archives (irsa_query, simbad_query, esasky_query, ned_query) that also resolve an object name to coordinates. No prerequisites, no mention that it is a cone search, and no exclusions are given, so the agent must guess based on the description alone.

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