Submit TAP async job

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotence, and destructive hints, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the job is asynchronous, the exact query text is preserved, and the ADQL should be bounded. It does not contradict the annotations and respects the open-world hint.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose and trigger condition front-loaded, followed by a necessary preservation warning. There is no redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

The description, rich schema, output schema, and sibling job tools (job_status, job_wait, job_fetch, job_delete) together cover the async job lifecycle without bloating this definition. It could explicitly mention that submission returns a job identifier for follow-up, but the output schema and sibling names make that discoverable.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, including the query guidance 'Use TOP for a query-level bound; do not use LIMIT.' The description reinforces that the query should be bounded and exact but adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the specific action (submit), the resource (TAP async job), and the scope (metadata-backed bounded ADQL). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from starfetch_tap_query, making its role immediately recognizable.

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?

It states the trigger condition 'when synchronous querying is insufficient' and names the alternative for small work: 'use starfetch_tap_query.' This gives an agent explicit decision criteria before opening the schema.

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