alma_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no authentication is needed, that obscore contains only calibrated products, that with_products triggers an extra datalink lookup whose output is capped at three URLs rendered as clickable links, and that limit defaults to 8 and maxes at 20. Response structure beyond that is not described.

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 purpose line and example queries come first, then a clean per-parameter list, so it is well front-loaded and easy to scan. A few entries are slightly verbose (the with_products rendering note), but essentially every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 nine-parameter, read-only search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation fully and hints at return content (record count, product URL list, clickable links) without spelling out the result fields. Adequate, though a sentence on what a normal result record contains would close the last gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: every one of the nine parameters is explained, including band frequency mappings (3≈100GHz, 6≈230GHz, 7≈345GHz), product_type enum values, radius default, and the interaction between object_name and ra/dec cone search.

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 (検索する) and a specific resource (ALMA 観測データ), and adds the instrument type (電波干渉計) plus the '認証不要' constraint, which makes it trivially distinguishable from sibling observatory searches such as mast_observations or cadc_observations.

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?

Gives concrete example queries ('アルマで観測されたM100', 'HL Tau のALMA観測（バンド7）') and explains the object_name vs ra/dec+radius selection rule, which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer ALMA data over the other observatory catalog tools in the sibling list.

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