Get a NEON sample

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: an API token is required, ambiguous tags trigger class disambiguation or candidate listing, and degree=N extends the result to relatives N steps away. This enriches the agent's mental model of the operation.

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 one dense but well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then covers identifiers, degree behavior, and next-step guidance. Every clause earns its place, though a bit of restructuring into separate sentences would improve scanability.

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 11 parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential invocation logic: what a sample is, how to identify it, how degree works, and how to traverse the graph. It does not explain events_limit, limit, or offset, but those are minor pagination controls already structured in the schema.

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 73%, and the schema describes fields like degree, fields, barcode, sample_tag, and include_events. The description adds value by grouping identifiers into alternative lookup paths (tag+class, UUID, barcode, archive GUID) and explaining that degree controls relative expansion. It does not clarify pagination parameters like limit and offset, but the schema covers those with defaults and ranges.

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 names a specific verb ('get') and a specific resource ('a physical sample's custody chain'), and clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like neon_get_site or neon_get_product by stating it returns identifiers, events, and parent/child relationships. It also enumerates the exact identifier types accepted, which leaves no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 call the tool: when you need a custody chain and can identify the sample by tag, UUID, barcode, or archive GUID. It also explains how to continue traversal ('follow parent or child identifiers with another neon_get_sample call'), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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