get_example_url

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 usefully discloses that calling it does not submit a job, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether the returned URL is static or expires, or whether the resource is hosted externally.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the purpose clause earning its place by justifying why the tool exists. 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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (a URL) and why to use it. Minor gaps around URL lifetime/access are not critical for correct invocation.

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% and the single parameter (server_type) has a documented enum and default, so the schema fully specifies the input. The description adds no meaning about server_type or how the choice affects the returned sample, matching the baseline of 3.

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 URL for the example antiSMASH output') and adds scope that separates it from the job-oriented siblings: it exists to explore format/content 'without submitting a job.' An agent can tell immediately this is a static sample-fetch, not a computation request.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('explore the format and content of antiSMASH results without submitting a job'), which implicitly routes the agent away from submit_sequence/submit_ncbi. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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