Get a NEON data release

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail: unknown tags fail with the list of valid releases, and product results are paged and filterable.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core capability, then add the error behavior and a clear next-step pointer. Every sentence contributes new information with no 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the main selection modes, optional includes, filtering/pagination, error behavior, and a follow-up action. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining that site_code and product_code return items 'exactly as published in that release' and that products are 'paged, filterable'. This enriches the raw parameter names and 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: getting one NEON release, its data products with DOIs, sites, artifacts, or a single product/site as published in that release. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like neon_get_site, neon_get_product, and neon_get_citation by emphasizing release-pinned data.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need release-specific data, optionally including sites or artifacts, or a product/site as published in that release. It also names a follow-up tool (neon_get_citation) for citations, though it doesn't explicitly list exclusions for all sibling tools.

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