silva_testprobe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the job runs asynchronously and results are retrieved via a returned web URL. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, whether submitted jobs can be cancelled, or how long results persist, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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 the core action stated first. The middle sentence about TestProbe 3.0 is mildly redundant with the opening claim, costing it the top score, but nothing is padded.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description supplies the critical missing piece: that the call returns a job URL rather than results directly. It stops short of describing what the result view contains or job lifecycle, leaving a small gap for an async submission tool.

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% with all nine parameters documented in the schema itself, including enums, ranges, and the IUPAC probe format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: submit a TestProbe job that finds probe/primer sequence occurrences in SILVA. It is concrete about what the job does, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-twin sibling silva_testprime, which an agent would need to tell apart.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though silva_testprime is an obvious candidate for confusion. The only usage-like hint is that the returned URL should be used to view results, which is closer to behavior than to tool selection.

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