object_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source, that authentication is unnecessary, and how neighbor searches work, but it does not describe return structure, failure behavior, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then examples, then parameter details. It is appropriately sized, though the Args block could be slightly tightened.

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?

The description covers invocation well, including all parameters and data source, but with no output schema it does not explain the shape of returned object data or neighbor results. That leaves a meaningful completeness gap for an agent consuming the output.

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: object_name formats and Japanese-name handling are explained, neighbors is defined as a cone-search count, and radius_arcmin includes units, range, and default. Minor ambiguity remains about radius_arcmin when neighbors is zero.

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: retrieving basic celestial-object information from SIMBAD, with no authentication required. Examples make the intended object lookup clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as catalog_search or exoplanet_search.

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 examples imply when the tool is useful, and the parameter text explains optional neighbor searches. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related sibling tools or when not to use it.

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