STRING-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (URL) without describing what the tool does (e.g., generates a visualization, requires computation, may have rate limits, or returns a static vs. dynamic URL). For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for the given information.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'enrichment scatter figure' is, how parameters affect the output, or what the returned URL represents (e.g., a temporary link, file format). For a visualization tool with many options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters with descriptions like 'Protein list' and 'NCBI/STRING taxon (required)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Return URL of enrichment scatter figure' states the action (return URL) and resource (enrichment scatter figure), but is vague about what an 'enrichment scatter figure' represents. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_network_image' or 'get_functional_enrichment', leaving the specific purpose unclear beyond basic verb+resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_functional_enrichment' or 'get_ppi_enrichment' that might be related. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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