get_og_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are capped at max_species to avoid large responses and that the return includes species, protein counts, and protein IDs, but it omits permissions, error behavior, and explicit read-only safety context beyond the implied 'Retrieve'.

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?

The docstring is structured and front-loads the purpose, cap behavior, and parameter explanations. The Returns section is slightly redundant given the output schema, but the description remains efficient and well organized.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description provides enough to call it correctly: parameter formats, cap behavior, and a return summary. The main remaining gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation or usage guidance, and the output schema already covers detailed return shape.

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 compensate, and it does: og_id is documented with its family@taxid|level format and an example, while max_species is explained as an optional cap with default 50. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: retrieve the list of proteins within an orthologous group. It is easy to distinguish from generic protein or ortholog tools by the phrase 'within an orthologous group,' but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_orthologous_group or get_orthologs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling tools are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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