Read TAP capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is fully covered. The description adds useful context about what is inspected (languages, formats, auth), but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error conditions or rate limits. No annotation contradiction exists.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action, the target, the inspected details, and the intended timing. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only capability inspection tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It explains why and when to call it without needing to describe return values. It does not explicitly state that exactly one of url/service must be supplied, though the schema descriptions already communicate the either-or relationship.

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%, and both 'url' and 'service' parameters have clear descriptions including the 'use this or the other' relationship. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 ('Inspect') and names concrete resources: languages, formats, and authentication requirements of the selected TAP service. The phrase 'before using service-specific features' also distinguishes this from sibling tools like starfetch_tap_query or starfetch_tap_submit_job, which execute operations rather than introspect capabilities.

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 gives clear usage timing: use this before service-specific features. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling list and the 'before' phrasing make the intended workflow evident.

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