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. It discloses a detailed list of returned data (accession, kind, genomic features, names, strain info), which compensates for the missing output schema, and 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state error behavior or authentication needs, but for a simple getter the output disclosure is substantial.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the returned fields, earning 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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete: it explains the tool's purpose and describes the return content. The main gap is the absence of any usage guidance or sibling differentiation, which would be beneficial for an agent choosing among the many get/list tools.

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 parameter's type, minimum, and example are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates 'numeric ID' but adds no new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clear verb (Retrieve) and resource (genome) with an identifier type (numeric ID), and 'specific genome' implicitly distinguishes it from list_genomes. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative, so full 5-point differentiation is absent.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_genomes or get_strain. The only implied usage is that a numeric ID is required, which is already clear from the required parameter and its schema description.

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