bacdive_get_strain_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the breadth of the returned record (taxonomy, morphology, physiology, sequence data, external links), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens when an ID does not exist. 'Retrieve' implies a safe read, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second sentence is a long enumeration, but since no output schema exists, that list earns its place by telling the agent what the call will return.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the lookup key and the shape of the response. The only real gap is error behavior for an invalid or missing ID.

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% and the schema itself documents the single parameter with a concrete example ('2 for Bacillus subtilis subsp. subtilis str. 168'). The description only restates that the ID is numeric and BacDive-specific, adding no syntax or range detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve full detailed information about a specific strain') and pins the lookup key ('numeric BacDive ID'), which separates it from the search_* siblings that take query terms rather than an ID. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the search-then-fetch workflow, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'using its numeric BacDive ID' hints that this is a follow-up to a search, but the description never states when to use this tool versus bacdive_search_strain or bacdive_search_by_dsm_number, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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