gaia_adql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, whether the query is synchronous or asynchronous, what happens on query timeout, or how the max_results cap interacts with large result sets.

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 wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a raw-query tool.

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 a tool that executes arbitrary user-authored queries against a large archive, the description omits return format, result limits behavior, error handling, and required ADQL table/schema knowledge. With no output schema and no annotations, more context is needed than a bare one-liner.

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 the schema already documents adql, lang, and max_results. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or usage (e.g., ADQL grammar, table names, language effect), so this sits at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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) scoped to the Gaia archive, so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as gaia_cone_search or irsa_tap, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like gaia_cone_search (a structured positional query) and irsa_tap (another raw TAP/ADQL endpoint), the description should say when a raw ADQL query on Gaia is preferred, but it offers nothing.

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