silva_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the AND-combination rule and the returned fields, which is helpful, but says nothing about read-only/non-mutating nature, result limits, pagination defaults, or whether the default database is ssu-144.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the combining rule. The return-field enumeration is somewhat long but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 carries return-value and semantics information and does so adequately. Remaining gaps are minor: pagination/limit behavior and the default database can be read from the schema, though an agent would benefit from a note about the two selectable databases.

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 every parameter including enums and defaults. The description's only extra semantic content — AND logic — is already stated in the criteria schema description, so it adds little beyond baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search the SILVA rRNA database') and enumerates searchable fields and the shape of the result. It's clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like silva_browser or silva_sequence_detail, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the field list and AND-logic statement suggest 'use this to find sequences matching multiple attributes,' but there's no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to silva_browser/silva_sequence_detail for browsing or retrieving a single record.

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