search_exposures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one behavioral nuance ('backwards-compatible', implying a legacy facade) but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or how multiple datasets are merged.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource and dataset scope appear immediately. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the guidance gaps noted elsewhere.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, for a search tool spanning three distinct datasets with four enum modes, the description leaves the agent without enough context on when to use it versus the many sibling alternatives, which is the main completeness 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 100%, so the schema already documents dtxsid, dtxsids, and the data_type enum. The description's mention of pathways/MMDB/SEEM loosely corresponds to the enum values but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g., single vs. list IDs) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ('search') with a specific resource ('exposure') and names the datasets it spans (pathways/MMDB/SEEM), which map to the data_type enum. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_seem_general or get_exposure_mmdb_single_sample_by_dtxsid that cover the same datasets individually.

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 only usage signal is the phrase 'backwards-compatible', which implies a legacy wrapper, but the description never states when an agent should prefer this tool over the dataset-specific siblings (get_seem_general, get_exposure_mmdb_*, etc.) or what condition selects it. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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