bc_get_string_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (str or dict with error) and gives an example, but does not discuss potential behaviors such as handling multiple matches, rate limits, or authentication. The description is moderately transparent but could be more detailed.

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 concise with two sentences and a return specification. It front-loads the purpose and includes a brief justification. No unnecessary words, though the return format could be omitted if output schema is present.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but could mention error handling or the role of the limit parameter. Overall, fairly complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the function. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool maps protein identifiers to STRING database IDs, with specific input types and an example output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on interactions, networks, or other operations.

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?

The description implies usage when one needs a STRING ID, stating 'Using STRING IDs improves reliability.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bc_get_kegg_id, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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