splatalogue_lines

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 beyond the basic query intent. It does not mention result volume (line databases can return thousands of matches), default limits, pagination, or whether output is capped, all of which materially affect how an agent should call and consume this tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core query and scope come first and the optional filter second. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral detail is missing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally hint at what a line record contains (frequency, intensity, quantum numbers) and roughly how many rows to expect. As written it is functional but leaves the return shape entirely unstated for a multi-parameter astronomy query.

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 coverage is 100% with units (GHz), an enum, and defaults all documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the frequency-range and chemical-name filtering but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ("Query the Splatalogue spectral line database") plus the primary scope ("by frequency range"), which is enough to distinguish it from catalog/object siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related nist_lines line database, which is the one alternative an agent would most likely confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied by the required frequency-range parameters and the optional species filter, so an agent knows the shape of a valid call. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over nist_lines or any other line/catalog tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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