Search CASDA products

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

Descriptions adds context beyond annotations: it is read-only, no staging/download, bounded query, coordinate system (ICRS degrees), and frequency units (hertz). This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false) and provides useful behavioral detail, though it could mention pagination behavior more explicitly.

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 two sentences, front-loading purpose and listing exclusions. It is concise and efficient with no fluff. Slight improvement could be structure (e.g., bullets), but it is well within acceptable range.

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 tool's complexity (20 parameters, pagination, output schema exists), the description is brief. It does not mention pagination (page/cursor) or result limits, nor how to combine parameters. While output schema covering return values reduces burden, some contextual gaps remain for a complete understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it restates coordinate units which are already in parameter descriptions. No extra semantics are provided, so score remains at baseline.

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 it searches product metadata with a safely generated TAP/ADQL query. It distinguishes from siblings like casda_search_catalogue by specifying it is read-only and lists what it does not do (no staging, download, etc.), making the purpose specific and well-defined.

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 implies usage for searching product metadata and notes it is read-only, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like casda_search_images or casda_search_spectra. No explicit exclusions or alternative names are provided, so guidance is adequate but not comprehensive.

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