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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ({results: [{id, title, url}]}), the stable id convention, and the expectation to pass the id to 'fetch'. It does not cover pagination, errors, or authentication, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the return format and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the primary context: what it searches, what it returns, how to use the returned ids, and how it relates to sibling tools. It does not mention result limits or sorting, but these are not essential for a search tool description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely restates that query is a free-text search string. It does not explain matching nuances like case sensitivity or wildcards.

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 CAN-IMMUNE for genes and cell lines, a specific verb-resource combination. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it is the generic combined search endpoint versus the more specific search_genes and search_cell_lines tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('generic search endpoint ChatGPT expects') and when to prefer alternatives ('MCP-native clients can also use the more specific search_genes / search_cell_lines tools'). This provides clear usage guidance and alternatives.

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