Search CASDA images

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

Annotations already fully cover safety traits (readOnly, idempotent, etc.). The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'discover', such as pagination, rate limits, or result handling. With annotations, the burden is partially met, but more context could improve transparency.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but some important information is omitted. It effectively uses space but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the high parameter count (13) and complex usage (selecting pos_type and corresponding coordinates), the description is incomplete. It lacks any explanation of how parameters relate or how results are returned, even though the output schema exists. The description does not adequately compensate for the tool's 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%—every parameter has a description. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool discovers images and cubes via the CASDA SIA 2 interface, distinguishing it from sibling tools like casda_search_survey_images or casda_search_spectra. However, it does not elaborate on what 'images and cubes' entail, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. With many sibling tools for different search types, this omission hinders tool selection.

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