silva_sequence_detail

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 shape of the return payload in useful detail, implying a read-only lookup, but never states read-only semantics, permissions, pagination, or rate limits. Adequate but with clear gaps for an unannotated 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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and payoff, then the prerequisite. The first sentence is dense but every clause names real content; no filler.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and the ID provenance. It omits any mention of the ssu/lsu database choice, but the schema handles that fully.

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 silvaId and the database enum/branches. The description only echoes the provenance note for silvaId and adds nothing about the database parameter, 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ("Get detailed information about a specific SILVA sequence") and enumerates the content categories returned (taxonomy across SILVA/LPSN/GTDB, environment metadata, quality features, publications). It implicitly distinguishes itself from silva_search by requiring an ID obtained from search results, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

It states the prerequisite clearly: the internal SILVA sequence ID must come from search results, which routes the agent through silva_search first. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use case or alternative for browsing/list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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