sra_get

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by specifying what details are returned per accession type and that ERP/ERR/DRP/DRR are not indexed. It does not describe the response envelope or pagination, but for a read-only retrieval with this detail level the disclosure is strong.

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?

Two sentences carry all essential information, with the primary action and scope front-loaded before chain/alternative guidance. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers what can be retrieved, accepted formats, upstream callers, and unsupported accessions. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 already documents the single parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds accepted prefix list (SRP/SRX/SRR/SRS) and a concrete example (SRR14432476), giving the agent format guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('Get full details') and a precise resource ('NCBI SRA accession'), then enumerates the four accession types and the fields returned for each. This clearly separates it from sibling sra_search, which finds accessions rather than retrieving details.

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?

Explicitly names upstream tools (geo_get, sra_search) and the fields to chain from, and explicitly excludes European/DDBJ accessions with a pointer to ENA. This gives an agent both the workflow and the when-not-to-use condition, meeting the 5-level bar.

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