get_location_detail

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context: the accepted ID formats (SL0173 and SL-0173), the default cell type and why it is the default, and the accepted forms of cell_identifier. It says nothing about failure behavior for unknown IDs or any rate/permission constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose before the Args/Returns blocks, and each sentence carries information. The Args/Returns sections are somewhat verbose but well structured and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns line is a mild redundancy rather than a gap. With both parameters fully explained and the ID scheme clarified, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly; only error behavior is left unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: sl_id is documented with concrete examples and both accepted formats, and cell_identifier is documented with its default, purpose, and the three accepted input forms (numeric ID, name, SVG file name). This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

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 detailed description of a specific subcellular location') and pins down the identifier scheme (SL IDs like SL0173). This implicitly separates it from the search/list siblings such as search_locations and get_subcellular_locations, though it never names them explicitly.

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 description gives useful selection guidance for the cell_identifier value (defaults to 8719, the most comprehensive set) but offers no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like search_locations or get_subcellular_locations. Usage context is implied by the 'detail lookup by ID' framing rather than stated.

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