exoplanet_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no authentication is required, the default and maximum result count, and even a current result count for the earth_like filter. It says nothing about return shape, pagination, or behavior when filters match nothing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded before the Args block, and each parameter entry is one compact line with examples rather than prose. The final example query is truncated mid-sentence, a minor structural defect, but the rest earns its space.

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 6-parameter, all-optional query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, auth status, every parameter's semantics, and result-count bounds — enough to call it correctly. Only the return format and sibling routing are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it delivers: partial-match semantics for object_name with Japanese-name expansion, example values for discovery_method in both English and Japanese, units (parsec) for max_distance_pc, the underlying field for since_year (disc_year), and the exact thresholds and defaults for earth_like and limit.

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 first line names a specific verb (検索する), a precise resource (太陽系外惑星) and the exact upstream source (NASA Exoplanet Archive), which cleanly separates it from siblings like object_lookup, catalog_search, and planetary_evidence. The example queries in the description reinforce the concrete capability.

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 embedded example queries ("TRAPPIST-1 の惑星は？", "地球くらいの温度の系外惑星を探す") implicitly show when the tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor any pointer to a sibling tool for non-exoplanet object or catalog queries among the ~60 available tools.

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