list_extra_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' and the absence of parameters imply a harmless read-only operation with no side effects, and it discloses that feature descriptions are returned. It does not state the response shape, stability of the list, or whether the feature names are exact strings to pass to submit tools.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the second sentence adding genuine usage context rather than filler. No redundancy.

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-parameter, read-only listing tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say more about what comes back — e.g., whether it returns feature identifiers that match the values accepted by submit_sequence/submit_ncbi. That link is the whole reason an agent would call this before submitting.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent or describe any inputs.

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+resource: listing available extra features for antiSMASH analysis, including that descriptions are returned. It is clearly distinct from the job-management siblings (submit_sequence, check_job_status, etc.), though it never names a sibling to differentiate itself 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?

'These features can be specified when submitting a job' implies this is a discovery/discovery-before-submit tool, which is a useful hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no ordering guidance, and no named alternative, so usage remains inferred.

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