search_targets

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: ordering defaults vary per field (popularity rank, largest size first), result pagination limit (1-120), and raw=True returns the untrimmed payload. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for this read tool it conveys the key quirks.

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 the purpose, then a compact parameter glossary. It is dense but structured and every sentence carries parameter semantics. It is appropriately sized for a 23-parameter tool, though the inline list format is somewhat terse.

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?

Given the high parameter count, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete for calling the tool correctly. It misses some parameters and exact defaults for lat/lon/date, but the major ones and ordering behavior are explained. An agent could use it with minor guesswork.

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 largely does: it explains name, size bounds, con, cat, az_quadrants, hour_min/max with twilight keywords, order accepted values, order_asc semantics, results range, and extra pass-through. Several parameters (lat, lon, date, types, mag_max, min_alt, page, timezone, moon_dist_min, min_alt_minutes) are not covered, leaving gaps, but the high-value/complex ones are clarified.

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 and resource ('Advanced target search across Telescopius' full catalogue') and the tool name matches. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like target_info or tonight_highlights, but the search intent is clear from the name and opening.

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?

Implicit guidance is present through the parameter walkthrough (e.g., 'name: fuzzy name match'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative-tool recommendation. An agent can infer it's the broad catalogue search, yet nothing states prerequisites or exclusions.

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