Get Linked References

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation. Description adds value by specifying the types of identifiers returned and that they can be passed to external tools, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits.

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 with sections and bullet points. Slightly redundant between the first sentence and the WHEN TO USE section, but overall efficient 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core functionality well. Mentions integration with PubMed/bioRxiv, which is useful context. Lacks error or edge-case handling, but acceptable for this tool.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: experiment_accession and reference_type with its enum values. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves external references (PMIDs, DOIs, etc.) linked to experiments. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning related tools encode_link_reference and encode_get_citations.

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?

Includes a WHEN TO USE section explaining the tool is for retrieving references to pass to other tools (e.g., PubMed). Mentions related tools but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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