Fetch TAP async job result

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about format conversion, going beyond what annotations provide. It does not cover error behavior or whether the fetch blocks on completion, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence adds a meaningful capability without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Rich input schema, output schema, and annotations cover most invocation concerns. The main gap is explicit sequencing guidance—mentioning that the job should be finished before fetching, or pointing to job_status/job_wait—but the tool is still adequately usable as described.

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 baseline applies. The description's conversion sentence vaguely relates to format and sourceFormat, but it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource ('Fetch a TAP async job result') and adds a distinguishing capability: JSON/JSONL conversion from VOTable, CSV, and TSV rows. This clearly separates it from siblings like job_status, job_wait, and job_delete.

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 implies it should be used to retrieve the output of an already-submitted async TAP job, but it does not explicitly say to call it only after the job is complete, nor does it contrast with job_status or job_wait. Usage context is present but largely inferred.

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