find_filters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses ordering semantics (exact, then substring, then grouped-name matches), case-insensitivity, and the grouped-name expansion behavior. It also notes that sensor QE curves have channel Q, which is a useful behavioral detail. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but for a search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each dense with useful information: matching semantics, ordering, grouped-name behavior, downstream usage, and the Q channel note. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers matching, ordering, and downstream usage. It does not describe the result format (e.g., what fields are returned per match), but the description's stated purpose is to pick exact names, and the ordering semantics are sufficient for that. Minor gap, but overall complete enough.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with examples. The description adds the grouped-name matching behavior and the Q channel note, which enriches the 'query' and 'channel' semantics respectively. However, it does not add much beyond the schema's examples, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('PixInsight's built-in filter and camera QE database'), and the matching semantics (case-insensitive substring, grouped-name expansion). It also names the downstream consumers (run_spfc/run_spcc), which distinguishes it from the many measurement/process tools in the sibling list.

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 description explicitly says to use it to pick exact names for run_spfc or run_spcc, which gives a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative lookup tool, but among the siblings there is no obvious competing search tool, so the guidance is adequate.

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