mast_query

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, pagination, or what kind of records (spectra, images, catalogs) are returned. For a 6-parameter query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that names the archive, the action, and the two query modes with 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate more: it omits result format, pagination behavior, and guidance on the ra/dec vs object_name choice. Given the tool's complexity and rich sibling set, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 all six parameters with defaults and units. The description's 'object name or coordinates' phrasing restates the schema rather than adding format details or clarifying the mutual exclusivity beyond what object_name's description already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search), resource (MAST with expansion), and content (observations), plus the two accepted query modes (object name or coordinates). This is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish MAST from the many sibling archive queries (simbad_query, ned_query, vizier_query, irsa_query, etc.), so an agent must infer which archive to pick.

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 at all. In a sibling set crowded with archive/catalog queries, the description never says why an agent would choose MAST over NED, SIMBAD, or Vizier, nor when a cone search (ra/dec/radius) is preferred over object_name.

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