get_rna_description

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the read-only nature ('Get') and that the result is a literature-based summary rather than raw sequence. It does not disclose what happens when an RNA has no curated description, whether a remote lookup can fail or be slow, or any error behavior — material gaps for a lookup tool.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by conventional Args/Returns blocks with no filler. The Args section mostly restates the schema, so it is slightly redundant, but nothing is verbose or buried.

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 output schema already documents the return type, and the description is appropriately short for a one-parameter tool. The missing pieces are operational: ID format prerequisites and behavior for RNAs lacking a literature description, neither of which structured fields cover.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; the example ('mmu-mir-191') usefully conveys ID format. However it never states whether this must be an RNAcentral-native ID or whether external IDs need map_rna_id first, which is the key semantic ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves a literature-derived textual description of an RNA sequence from RNAcentral. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_secondary_structure_svg or search_sequence, though the description never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement — there is no explicit 'use this when...' and no mention of when to prefer map_rna_id or query_rnacentral instead. The 'e.g. mmu-mir-191' example hints at expected ID form but is not framed as a requirement.

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