Search ENCODE Experiments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context, such as pagination via limit/offset, default status 'released', and that it returns JSON with results, total count, and pagination info. No contradictions, and the description enhances transparency beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, examples, common values, usage guidance, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy due to the many examples and parameter details, but this is justified by the need to compensate for zero schema coverage. Nearly all sentences earn their place.

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 the tool's complexity (21 parameters, no required fields, no enums, has output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return format (JSON with results, count, pagination), provides usage examples, lists common values, and gives guidance on when to use alternative tools. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but the description handles it well.

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%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 21 parameters, including common values, defaults, and usage examples. Examples like 'assay_title="Histone ChIP-seq", organ="pancreas", biosample_type="tissue"' illustrate how to combine parameters effectively. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Search ENCODE experiments with comprehensive filters.' The verb 'search' and resource 'ENCODE experiments' are specific. Examples and common values further clarify the scope, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like encode_search_files and encode_get_facets.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' guidance: 'Use as the primary entry point when users want to find experiments. Start with encode_get_facets if unsure what filters to use.' It also lists related tools, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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