bacdive_search_genome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (genome sequence accessions plus strain information), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about pagination semantics (page is in schema but behavior is undocumented), result caps, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 padding; the search capability is front-loaded and the return value follows. Structurally clean, though it could be compressed to a single sentence without loss.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, and the description covers return content and query keys but omits pagination behavior and any guidance on how to choose this tool over its eight siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps for a multi-parameter search tool in a crowded namespace.

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 species, genus, and page, and the description's 'by species or genus name' merely restates the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Search) and resource (genome sequences in the BacDive database) plus the query keys (species or genus name). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like search_strain and search_16s, but never names an alternative, so differentiation is only inferable.

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 says what can be searched but gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to the many sibling lookup tools (search_strain, search_taxon, get_strain_by_id, etc.). The agent must guess which BacDive search tool fits its intent.

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