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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses the ranking algorithm (exact matches first, then partial, with node-type priors) and confirms the presence of a 'name' field. It stops short of mentioning rate limits or authentication, but covers the most critical behavioral aspects.

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 concise with two clear paragraphs: the first states purpose, the second details ranking. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: search scope, ranking behavior, and the existence of a 'name' field for disambiguation. No important gaps remain for a search tool of this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples for the query parameter (e.g., 'breast cancer', 'pembrolizumab', 'Merck') and explains the fields searched, providing meaningful context beyond the schema's generic 'Search term'.

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 states the tool searches BioCosm nodes by multiple fields (name, gene symbol, target, therapeutic area, or company), matching a specific verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_by_target by offering a broad, combined 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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus its siblings (find_by_target, find_by_phase, etc.). The description implies it's a general search but fails to state alternatives or when not to use it.

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