biosample_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does indicate a read-style operation, identifies the NCBI E-utilities source, and enumerates output fields. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid IDs, missing records, rate limits, or response error handling.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by input and output details. The Chinese sentence is redundant with the English text aside from naming NCBI E-utilities, but the overall length is still appropriate.

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 a one-parameter ID lookup with an output schema available, the description provides enough operational context: lookup mode, input format, output fields, and the underlying data source. It could add guidance for not-found cases, but this is a minor gap for such a simple 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?

The schema only defines sample_id as a string with no description, so 0% schema coverage means the description must compensate. It does so by providing concrete example formats (SAMN00000001, SAMEA123456), which meaningfully clarifies the expected parameter value.

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 identifies a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('biological sample metadata'), and the key qualifier ('by sample ID'). Listing the output fields also distinguishes it from broader search tools like biosample_search.

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 phrase 'by sample ID' implies this should be used when an accession is already available, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over biosample_search or other lookup alternatives. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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