bacdive_search_strain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paginated nature and the shape of returned fields, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, result caps, or behavior when both or neither name is supplied.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose and return shape come first and the usage hint last. Slightly padded by the full field enumeration, though that enumeration is doing real work given the absent output schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and noting pagination. It is close to complete for a simple search tool, missing only disambiguation from sibling search tools and any safety/permission context.

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 all three parameters (page, genus, species) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description restates the species/genus combination but adds no syntax or matching semantics 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 (search) and resource (bacterial/archaeal strains in BacDive) and the key input dimensions (species, genus, or both). However it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like bacdive_search_taxon or bacdive_browse_taxa, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 closing sentence 'Use this when looking up strains by their scientific name' gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g. search by DSM number or by ID) despite several competing siblings.

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