search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: partial matching with a worked example, and the three result categories returned. It is silent on read-only semantics, rate limits, pagination beyond the schema's limit field, and result ordering, which for a search endpoint is a real but modest gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return scope and the one non-obvious behavior (partial matching). No filler, no restatement of the title, and the partial-match note is placed exactly where an agent would need it.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the needed work: it names the database, the matching mode, and the three families of results an agent will get back. Parameter documentation is fully carried by the schema, so the only remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to the many sibling retrieval tools.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces query semantics by clarifying that matching is partial with concrete examples, but adds no new syntax, format, or limits information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (taxa or genomes in the GTDB database) and adds the return scope (matching organisms, taxonomic groups, genome assemblies). Among eleven siblings it is unmistakably the only discovery-by-name tool, so no schema opening is needed to tell it apart from get_taxon_summary or get_children.

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 implies usage through the query forms it accepts ('Escherichia coli', 'Bacillus', a genome ID) and the partial-match behavior, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_taxon_summary or get_genomes_for_species, nor when it should not be used. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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