get_genome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return payload (taxonomy, genome size, GC content, quality metrics, type strain status), which is valuable since no output schema exists. It does not state read-only semantics explicitly or describe behavior for an unrecognized/invalid genome ID.

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, zero filler, with the purpose and lookup key front-loaded before the return-field enumeration. Every clause earns its place.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers the return fields an agent would need to know and the required identifier format. The only real gap is error behavior for invalid IDs, which is minor here.

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 single parameter's description already supplies the same example identifiers ('GCF_000005845.2', 'GCA_000091565.1') that the tool description repeats. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (genome), and pins the lookup key as a GTDB genome ID, which implicitly separates it from ID-less siblings like list_phyla or get_genomes_for_species. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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: the agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when it already holds a genome ID rather than a species or taxon name. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no sibling named as an alternative.

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