STRING: Get enrichment result figure (image URL)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the key non-obvious behavior that each figure shows a single enrichment category and that multiple calls are required for multiple categories, and that outputs are image URLs. It omits any note on cost/rate limits or whether the call is side-effect free, but 'Retrieves' implies a read.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by two tight bullets; every sentence adds routing or behavioral value and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the returned figure details, and it covers the routing and repeat-call semantics an agent needs. Only a brief note on read-only/no side effects would make it fully self-contained for an 8-parameter 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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults and the enum meanings for category, x_axis, graph_type, and color_palette. The description only reinforces the `category` parameter indirectly; baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (STRING enrichment figure / image URL) scoped to a set of proteins, and explicitly separates itself from the sibling `string_enrichment` which returns terms/FDR values. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition selecting it ('For the enriched terms and FDR values, use `string_enrichment`'), explains that each call yields one category so repeat calls are needed, and instructs the agent to reuse the same proteins/species as already-displayed results so the figure matches.

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