Read TAP availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful context rather than repeating annotations. The caveat that an unavailable service is not an empty catalog result provides meaningful behavioral guidance beyond what annotations convey.

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 states the action and then adds one important caveat. There is no redundancy or filler; every part of the description adds value.

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 simple read-only availability check with an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to check and the key interpretive caveat; no additional operational details seem necessary.

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%, with both url and service parameters documented as alternatives. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema already explains the parameters and their relationship. Baseline 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: checking whether the selected TAP service reports itself as available. It also distinguishes itself from sibling catalog/query tools by clarifying that an unavailable service should not be interpreted as an empty catalog result.

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 conveys the clear context that this tool is for checking availability of the selected TAP service before interpreting results. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous enough for selection among the sibling tools.

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