search_assays_for_key_event

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that results are heuristic candidates derived from gene/phrase terms rather than curated mappings — an important reliability signal for the agent. It stops short of describing result ordering or volume behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately as supporting context.

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 read-only discovery tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description supplies what is missing: purpose, mechanism, and the candidate-vs-curated caveat. The unexplained limit parameter is the only real gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only obliquely implies the meaning of key_event_id ("Given a key event") and says nothing about the limit parameter, its default of 25, or its 1-100 range. Half the parameters remain unexplained by either schema or description.

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 (return candidate assays), resource (assays), and mechanism (KE-derived gene and phrase terms), and explicitly demarcates the boundary against a curated KE-to-assay mapping. An agent can tell this apart from the AOP-oriented siblings like list_assays_for_aop without opening a schema.

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?

"This is a discovery helper, not a curated KE-to-assay mapping" gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate (exploratory candidate generation rather than authoritative lookup). However, it does not name an explicit alternative tool or state when-not conditions beyond that single contrast.

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