isro_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that no auth is needed, the default kind, the default limit of 20 and the cap of 100 — useful operational constraints. It says nothing about pagination offsets, ordering, empty-result behavior, or rate limits, which leaves gaps for a network-backed data 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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact Args block; every line maps to a parameter and none is filler. Slightly verbose in restating defaults that already appear in the schema, but the enum documentation is genuinely load-bearing.

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 no annotations, no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly: record kinds, filtering, and result sizing. What it does not cover — the shape of a returned record (field names per kind) and error/empty behavior — is the remaining gap, though explaining return fields for four record types would risk bloat.

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, and it does: all three parameters are documented, including a per-value explanation of the four 'kind' options (which the schema does not encode as an enum), a partial-match explanation of 'query' with concrete examples ('cartosat', 'chandrayaan') and the omit-for-all behavior, and the default/max for '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?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns official ISRO data') and enumerates exactly what kinds of records are available (spacecrafts, launchers, customer satellites, centres). The agency name plus the kind enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling agency tools (jaxa_datasets, inpe_collections, dlr_collections, roscosmos_collections).

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?

Says no authentication is required and marks 'spacecrafts' as the default kind, which implies when the tool is appropriate, but never states when to prefer a sibling (e.g. versus a dedicated search tool for another agency) or what to do when no matching records exist. Usage must be inferred from the kind list.

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