silva_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return artifact (a URL) and the interactive-browser payoff, but says nothing about behavior for invalid accessions, default database handling, or that it is a safe read operation. Adequate but with clear gaps for an annotation-free 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and the returned artifact before the supplementary browser context. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter URL builder with no output schema, the description states what is produced and both parameters are fully documented by the schema. Minor missing detail (invalid accession behavior, whether the URL is directly fetchable) keeps it short of a 5.

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 the schema already documents both the enum-constrained database and the accession-or-'cart' value. The description's mention of 'a specific sequence or the cart' restates rather than extends the schema, giving no format or edge-case detail beyond it.

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: 'Get the URL to view a specific sequence or the cart in the SILVA taxonomy browser.' An agent can tell this is a URL-construction tool, though it never names or contrasts with siblings like silva_sequence_detail or silva_search, which also deal with sequences.

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 second sentence ('provides interactive exploration of the taxonomic context of sequences') implies why an agent would want the URL, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool named. Usage must be inferred from the tool's purpose.

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