Link External Reference

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds that it creates a 'link' and returns JSON, but does not elaborate on side effects, authentication, or duplicate handling beyond 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?

The description is well-structured with a brief summary, cross-server bridge context, usage scenario, dedicated sections for WHEN and RELATED TOOLS, and clear parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (4 parameters, 3 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. The return description is minimal but acceptable. A slightly more detailed return format would elevate completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides thorough explanations for each parameter, including format examples, enum values, and usage contexts (e.g., 'experiment_accession: ENCODE experiment accession (e.g., "ENCSR133RZO")'). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 specifies the action: linking an external reference to a tracked ENCODE experiment. It provides concrete examples (PubMed, DOI, GEO) and distinguishes from sibling tools like encode_get_references which retrieve references.

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?

A 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly states the tool's purpose for attaching external IDs after finding a paper. Related tools are mentioned, but no direct exclusion or alternative scenarios are provided, leaving some ambiguity about 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.