sra_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that coverage spans NCBI, ENA, and DDBJ submissions and specifies the payload shape per accession type. It stops short of noting error behavior for unknown accessions or any rate/latency considerations, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 short paragraphs with no filler: the capability and prefix taxonomy lead, and the chaining guidance follows. Every clause adds either scope, coverage, or routing information.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers everything an agent needs: what accession to pass, where to obtain it, what each type returns, and cross-database prefix coverage. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and includes a regex plus example, so the schema already carries the syntax burden. The description goes further by mapping each prefix family (SRR/ERR/DRR, SRX/ERX/DRX, etc.) to the entity and returned content, giving the agent semantic meaning beyond the pattern.

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 and resource ("Get full details for an SRA accession") and immediately enumerates the four accession classes (run/experiment/study/sample) plus what each yields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back before calling. It is clearly distinguished from sra_search (search) and geo_get (upstream source) by name.

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 routes the agent: "Chain from geo_get (sra field) or sra_search (experiment_accession / first_run_accession)," naming the fields that supply the argument. It also preempts a likely failure mode by noting that ENA and DDBJ-prefixed accessions returned by sra_search resolve here, so the agent doesn't hesitate on non-SRR ids.

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