List TAP tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and nondestructive hints, so the description does not need to restate safety behavior. It adds the workflow reason for listing tables, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, limits, or completeness of the table list beyond what annotations and output schema already cover.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and outcome with no filler. It is appropriately compact for a simple list tool and includes the important workflow-stage context.

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 output schema, rich annotations, and two optional parameters with full descriptions, the definition is functionally complete for invoking the tool. It captures the purpose and the stage in the ADQL workflow; a minor gap is not explicitly saying that exactly one of url/service should be provided, but the schema already conveys that.

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 already explain that one should be used and that they are workflow-selected. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters, so it earns the baseline score for schema-covered parameters.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('List tables on the selected TAP service') and adds workflow context ('before choosing an exact table for ADQL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like starfetch_tap_columns, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 when to use it: before selecting an exact table for ADQL on an already-chosen TAP service. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct the agent to related tools such as starfetch_tap_columns or starfetch_tap_capabilities, leaving the guidance implied rather than fully explicit.

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