searchTools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches, but does not reveal what the search returns, whether it is read-only, any rate limits, authentication needs, or scope limitations. This is a significant transparency 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain return values, parameter details, edge cases, or usage context, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly in a complex scenario.

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. It mentions 'intent, keyword, or tag,' which loosely maps to query and tags, but does not explicitly explain how the two parameters interact, whether they can be combined, or what format values should take. The mapping is too vague to reliably guide parameter usage.

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 clearly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('all life science sources'), and the search modes ('by intent, keyword, or tag'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like getToolInfo and callTool by framing it as a cross-source search operation.

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 the tool is for searching across life science sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling tools are generic, so the intended context is somewhat inferable but not directly stated.

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