get_strain

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned data (strain numbers, typified names, genomes, strain info DOIs), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an invalid or unknown ID, or response size.

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 tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first and the payload description second. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and enumerates the returned field categories, which compensates well for the absent output schema. Only the lack of any usage or error context keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the type, minimum, and an example value. The description adds nothing beyond restating 'numeric ID', which is the expected baseline here.

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 ('Retrieve detailed information about a specific strain') and scopes it to lookup by numeric ID, so the read-by-identifier pattern is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_* tools (get_name, get_genome, get_register), but the resource noun is distinct enough to separate them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of a list/predecessor tool, and no prerequisites such as needing an ID from a prior lookup. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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