STRING: Query species and clades in STRING

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful constraints: up to 100 taxon IDs separated by %0d, results limited to top 50 matches per query, and a specific fallback behavior for unmatched species. It does not cover authentication needs, rate limits, or read-only status, but for a query tool the disclosed limits and fallback are substantial.

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 bullet-structured and front-loads the core purpose before usage details. It is mostly efficient, though the bullet about resolving NCBI taxon IDs to scientific names is somewhat redundant with the opening sentence and creates minor ambiguity about return values. Overall it is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter schema, existing output schema, and lack of annotations, the description supplies the key contexts an agent needs: when to use it, input limits, result limits, species-vs-clade behavior, and a fallback for missing species. Return values need not be explained because an output schema is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful constraint beyond the schema: it accepts up to 100 taxon IDs separated by %0d. It also reinforces that multiple queries should use taxon IDs rather than free-text names, which helps an agent choose the correct input form.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search for species or clades available in STRING and return their NCBI taxonomy IDs. It also clarifies that the tool is used to obtain correct taxon IDs for other tools, making its role distinct from sibling tools. The added note about resolving NCBI taxon IDs to scientific names is slightly inconsistent with 'return their NCBI taxonomy IDs', but it does not obscure the primary purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use criteria: user asks which species or clades are present, or an agent needs a taxon ID to pass to other tools. It also states when-not: when the user asks for a species list, do not list clades. It names a concrete fallback tool and condition: invoke string_help with topic='missing_species' if the requested species cannot be matched.

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