Run CASDA TAP query

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as rejecting certain inputs and being 'bounded' (likely size/rate limits), which helps the agent understand constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every word contributes meaning. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, constraints, and input requirements. Could optionally mention result format or limits, but not required.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair 'Execute one validated, bounded sync TAP query' that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like casda_validate_adql (validation only) and casda_submit_tap_query (likely async).

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?

The description explicitly states the requirement for 'CASDA_ENABLE_ADVANCED_ADQL' and lists rejected inputs (mutations, comments, multi-statement, non-allowlisted tables), providing clear usage context. It could mention when to use alternatives like casda_submit_tap_query.

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