cutout_urls

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that multiple external services are queried and which ones, which supports the openWorld hint, but doesn't say whether links are returned as URLs only (no image bytes), whether services can fail independently, or anything about latency/rate limits from external archives.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the output and the sources with no filler. Slightly dense with survey names but each earns its place by telling the agent what's available.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gaps are the undocumented size_arcsec parameter and no statement of what a 'cutout link' resolves to, which matters for a tool that hits several external archives.

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 largely doesn't. It implies ra/dec via 'for a position', but the size_arcsec parameter (default 60) is never mentioned, leaving the agent with no guidance on field of view sizing.

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 resource: image cutout links for a sky position, and enumerates the surveys/formats returned (Legacy Survey DR10, Pan-STARRS, DSS2, Aladin Lite). It's clear what the tool produces, though it doesn't contrast itself with the sibling whats_here, which also covers 'what is at this position'.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as whats_here, or when the user wants images versus catalogue data. The agent must infer usage entirely from the noun phrase.

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