search_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any side effects, though the search nature implies no mutations. It could be improved by stating that no modifications are made.

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 concise and well-structured, using a clear docstring format with separate sections for parameters and returns. No extraneous information is present.

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 presence of an output schema (covered in the return description), and full schema coverage for parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively. It lacks authentication details but that is not expected for a search tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter info from the schema (e.g., query and max_results) without adding new meaning beyond defaults and range, which are already in 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 the tool searches protocols.io for laboratory protocols, with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('protocols'). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_protocol' which likely retrieves a single protocol.

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 is clear about the tool's function but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_protocol). The intended use is implied 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.