search_seqcode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return shape (id, name, url, api_url), which partially offsets the missing output schema, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, total counts, or empty-result behavior — all material for a search tool.

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 and cleanly separated into purpose, return shape, and alternative-tool guidance. Slightly expensive on the enumeration of entity types that duplicates the schema enum, but no sentence is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and result fields adequately. It is missing pagination/limit semantics and any distinction from the list_* tools, so an agent can invoke it but cannot confidently predict result volume or scope.

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 `what` (with its enum and default) and `query` are already documented by the schema. The description's enumeration of the five search targets merely restates the enum and adds no syntax, matching, or formatting guidance for `query`. Baseline 3 applies 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 (SeqCode Registry) and enumerates the five entity types, mirroring the `what` enum. It routes the agent away from `get_*` tools, but does not distinguish itself from the many `list_*` siblings (list_names, list_genomes, list_publications, etc.), leaving a real ambiguity for an agent at selection time.

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 final sentence gives one clear when-to-use rule: prefer get_* for details on an individual result. However, it never explains when to use search with a query versus browsing via the list_* siblings, which is the more likely selection conflict given the sibling set. Usage is implied rather than fully resolved.

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