genbank_get

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial operational detail beyond those: the 2,000,000 bp cap, 10 Mb region span, reverse-strand semantics, region echo behavior, NCBI complement notation, 200,000-character truncation, and the max_response_bytes error behavior. There is no contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 first sentence gives a crisp purpose statement, and the second paragraph packs multiple complex rules into compact prose with no filler. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation, and the most important scope-limiting facts appear early.

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?

The description covers every edge case that could cause a failed or misleading call: record-size caps, region span limits, strand semantics, truncation behavior, and the max_response_bytes hard cap. Since there is no output schema, the description's detail about the returned text and its truncation behavior is especially valuable for an agent deciding whether a request will succeed.

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 covers all six parameters with 100% description coverage, and the description goes well beyond it by explaining 1-based inclusive coordinates, the cap that makes seq_start/seq_stop required, the strand=2 reverse-slice usage, and the truncation guard that motivates max_response_bytes. This transforms the parameter names into actionable invocation knowledge.

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 opening sentence, 'Fetch a GenBank/RefSeq nucleotide record as text (GenBank flat file or FASTA)', names a specific verb, a precise resource, and the output formats. This clearly distinguishes genbank_get from genbank_search, which is about discovery, and from genbank_genes, which targets gene records rather than nucleotide records.

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 detailed operational conditions: whole-record fetches are capped at 2,000,000 bp, larger records require seq_start/seq_stop, and strand=2 is needed for reverse-strand slices. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as genbank_search, gene_get, or ensembl_region; that guidance is implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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