search_eggnog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a real behavioral constraint (3-character minimum) and the shape of results, but says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs exact, case sensitivity), result caps, pagination, or that the operation is read-only and side-effect free.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line statement of what it does, followed by usable detail. The reStructuredText Parameters/Returns blocks duplicate schema information, and the second sentence restates the first, but the overall size is proportionate to a one-parameter tool.

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 single-parameter search tool whose output schema already defines the return structure, the description covers purpose, accepted input forms, and the minimum-length rule. The remaining gap is matching/pagination behavior, which is a modest omission rather than a blocker.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the single query parameter is documented with a length constraint and four concrete example values spanning gene names and UniProt IDs. Only the exact matching semantics remain unspecified.

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 and resource: a text search across the eggNOG database for proteins or protein families. It is distinguishable from retrieval siblings like get_protein or get_orthologous_group, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them or notes that it matches by name/ID text rather than by exact identifier lookup.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition (query must be at least 3 characters) and enumerates acceptable query forms via examples (protein name, UniProt ID, family name). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get_protein or get_protein_family, nor what happens on no match — usage is implied rather than routed.

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