fetch_cluster_wl_profiles

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does valuable work by disclosing the dataset contents (SPT-SZ Megacam, 20 clusters, Dietrich+19) and the artifact shape (g_t(r) with errors, one CSV per cluster), but it never states that the tool writes files to output_dir, what permissions or network access are needed, or what happens on failure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then scope, then output format. There is minimal waste; the closing sentence about summary-statistic data products is mildly promotional but still conveys that the output is usable data rather than raw pixels.

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-value detail is not required in prose, and the description already characterizes the payload (per-cluster CSV of g_t(r) with errors). For a two-parameter fetch tool this is close to sufficient; the main gap is the unstated side effect of writing CSVs into the caller-supplied directory.

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 baseline is 3 even without parameter detail in the description. The description does add a little beyond the schema by expanding what 'spt_sz' actually contains ('SPT-SZ Megacam shear profiles, 20 clusters, Dietrich+19'), but it says nothing further about output_dir beyond the schema's own text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch published weak-lensing tangential shear profiles for clusters with WL follow-up,' which clearly separates it from the catalog-oriented siblings such as fetch_cluster_catalog. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to disambiguate against, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'can be used for mass calibration' hints at the intended workflow, and the availability note scopes it to SPT-SZ clusters. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to sibling tools like compare_mass_calibration that might be paired with it.

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