Get Experiment Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond this: it enumerates exactly what is returned (metadata, files, control accessions, replicate counts, audit flag levels) and explicitly discloses what is excluded (QC metrics like FRiP/NSC). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well structured and front-loaded: the core purpose leads, followed by returns detail, exclusion, WHEN TO USE, RELATED TOOLS, Args, and Returns. Minor redundancy exists where the prose return list ('metadata, all associated files...') is restated by the final 'Returns: JSON with full experiment details and file listing' line, but every other section earns its place.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter tool that has an output schema and rich annotations. The description covers purpose, return contents, an explicit exclusion, when to use it, related tools, and parameter format. With the output schema present, the return structure does not need further elaboration.

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 parameter meaning. It does: 'accession: ENCODE experiment accession (e.g., "ENCSR133RZO", "ENCSR000AKS")' adds the accession format and two concrete examples beyond the bare schema title 'Accession'. This fully compensates for the empty schema description.

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 ('get full details') plus a precise resource (ENCODE experiment) identified by accession ID. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like encode_list_files (files), encode_search_experiments (search), encode_get_file_info (file), and encode_get_metadata (metadata). The agent can distinguish this from every sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit WHEN TO USE section ('when you have a specific accession and need full details including files, controls, and audit counts') and lists RELATED TOOLS (encode_list_files, encode_track_experiment, encode_compare_experiments). However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or precisely when a named related tool should be chosen instead, so exclusions/differentiation are absent.

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