find_filters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses case-insensitive substring matching, grouped-name expansion with a concrete example, result ordering (exact, substring, grouped), and that Q channel curves are returned. It does not mention cost, limits, or result size, but for a read-only search this is substantial.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what and how it matches, then the routing advice, then a niche detail. No filler.

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 two-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers matching behavior, ordering, and when to use it. It could say what a result row contains (name only? name+QE curve?), which would matter for an agent parsing the response, but nothing essential is missing.

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 already 100% with examples for both params, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema, namely the case-insensitive substring semantics of 'query' and the grouped-name matching rule, plus the Q-channel note relevant to 'channel'.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (PixInsight's built-in filter and camera QE database) with the exact lookup key (name, case-insensitive substring). An agent can distinguish it from all the run_*/measure_* siblings at a glance.

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?

Explicitly states the purpose: 'Use it to pick exact names for run_spfc or run_spcc,' which maps this lookup tool onto the two downstream tools that consume its output. It does not state when-not to use it, but for a benign lookup tool the context is clear.

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