fermi_lat_adql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. Naming TAP implies a standard read-only query protocol, but nothing is said about row limits, sync vs async execution, timeouts, or error behavior for arbitrary user-supplied ADQL.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool that accepts arbitrary query strings.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and an unbounded input (any ADQL string), yet the description says nothing about the return shape, result caps, or execution model. For a free-form query tool this leaves substantial gaps.

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 all three parameters (adql, lang, max_results) are already documented in the schema with defaults and an enum. The description adds no syntax, dialect, or limit guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Execute) and resource (raw ADQL query on the Fermi LAT archive via TAP), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, fermi_lat_catalog_query, though 'raw' hints at the difference.

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 only implied: 'raw ADQL' suggests advanced, user-authored queries, and the sibling list contains a curated Fermi catalog tool. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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