get_nebula

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data sources and that unknown names fall back to SIMBAD, but it does not state read-only safety, error behavior, or how the live parameter changes fallback/query behavior.

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 core purpose and packed into a single dense sentence. The parenthetical field list is long but each clause contributes relevant return-record information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned record fields in useful detail. It is slightly incomplete on output shape and live-query behavior, but sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool returns.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only the 'unknown names fall back to SIMBAD' detail, which lightly supplements the name parameter but does not explain the live parameter's interaction with the fallback.

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 clearly states this retrieves the full record for a single nebula and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from broader search tools. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative such as search_nebulae for multi-object lookup.

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 by 'one nebula' and the fallback note for unknown names, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_nebulae or get_pulsar. The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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