irsa_tap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only semantics, synchronous vs asynchronous execution, truncation behavior when max_results is hit, timeout or rate limits, or error handling for invalid ADQL. Only the bare fact of query execution is conveyed.

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 eight-word sentence with the action and target front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description should carry significantly more: result format, pagination/truncation, error behavior, and routing relative to irsa_query. As written, an agent can form the call but not predict what happens on failure or over-large result sets.

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 'adql', 'lang', and 'max_results' are already documented in the schema, which establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing beyond that, e.g., no note on ADQL version limits, string escaping, or how max_results interacts with server-side truncation.

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?

Names a specific verb (Execute) and resource (raw ADQL query against IRSA TAP service), and the word 'raw' hints at a low-level counterpart to the higher-level sibling irsa_query. It does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus irsa_query, gaia_adql, or fermi_lat_adql, and no mention of prerequisites, ADQL dialect constraints, or expected query complexity. The agent must guess that this is the escape hatch for queries the higher-level tools cannot express.

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