search_nebulae

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one valuable behavioral fact — that this queries a bundled/static catalog rather than the live one — but says nothing about result caps (limit maxes at 500 in the schema), ordering, or what a hit record contains. Adequate, not rich, for an unannotated read tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the sibling routing second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 an 11-parameter, unannotated, no-output-schema tool the description should do more: it never explains the b_* latitude bounds, the meaning of limit, or whether filters combine with AND. The bundled-vs-live distinction is the strongest addition, but key parameter semantics remain unaddressed.

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 45%, with b_min/b_max, l_max, limit, pwn_type and has_pulsar left undocumented. The description partially compensates by naming the conceptual axes (Galactic position, pulsar properties), which maps l/b ranges and min_edot/has_pulsar, but it gives no units, no explanation of pwn_type values, and no note on limit/pagination.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and a specific resource (the bundled catalog of PWNe and showcase nebulae), and enumerates the filter axes: name, type, Galactic position, CGPS coverage, pulsar properties. The second sentence separates it from cone_search and query_vizier, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 names the alternatives (cone_search, query_vizier) and the condition that selects them (full live catalogs vs. the bundled snapshot). It stops short of covering the other near neighbours in the sibling list, e.g. when to use get_nebula by identifier or cgps_coverage for footprint questions.

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