bc_search_interpro_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format (results, count, total_available, search_criteria or error) but does not explicitly state the tool's read-only nature or any side effects, which is adequate 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?

The description is two sentences plus a Returns section, front-loaded with the main purpose, concise with no wasted words, and effectively communicates 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 the tool's complexity (6 optional parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main search functionality and output structure. However, it omits mention of pagination (page_size parameter) and how filters combine, leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and parameter descriptions, the description adds modest value by listing searchable criteria (name, type, database, GO term, species) that correspond to parameters, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 InterPro entries' with specific criteria (name, type, database, GO term, or species), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bc_get_interpro_entry which retrieves a single entry.

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 usage for searching by various criteria but does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention bc_get_interpro_entry as a better fit for known entries.

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