bacdive_search_by_dsm_number

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully defines what a DSMZ number is and discloses the return shape ('matching taxon entry'), but omits match semantics (exact vs. fuzzy), not-found behavior, and any permission/rate context.

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 with the core action, followed by a useful definition of DSMZ numbers and the return type. Three short sentences with minimal waste, though the identifier-definition sentence is somewhat expendable.

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 one-parameter search with no output schema, the description is adequate: it defines the input identifier and states the return. It stops short of covering not-found behavior or routing versus sibling search tools, which a complete definition would address.

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 already documents the single parameter with the same examples ('DSM 3', 'DSM 10', optional prefix). The description's examples duplicate the schema rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (strain) qualified by the identifier type (DSMZ strain number), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling bacdive_search_strain, leaving the boundary ambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named, despite multiple overlapping search siblings (bacdive_search_strain, bacdive_search_taxon). The agent must infer when this is preferable to a general strain search.

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