search_bio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what databases are searched. It does not mention that the query is sent to multiple providers, how results are merged, duplicate handling, rate limits, or failure behavior. The parameter descriptions hint at merging ('merged result set'), but the tool description itself adds almost no behavioral context.

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 with no filler. It names the action, the domain, and the specific databases in an efficient enumeration, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope well and the schema documents all parameters, but there is no output schema and no mention of the result format or merged-result behavior in the description itself. For a multi-provider search tool, an agent would benefit from knowing that results are aggregated and how to interpret the response, so the definition is adequate but not complete.

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 does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond indicating the domain; it does not clarify query syntax, how num_results applies per provider, or what max_total_results means. This is acceptable because the schema already documents each parameter clearly.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and a clearly bounded resource ('biomedical and life-science databases'), then enumerates the exact sources: UniProt, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and Europe PMC. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_academic and search_web, which are broader or cover different domains.

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 domain scope is explicit, so an agent can infer that biomedical, protein, clinical-trial, or life-science literature queries should route here rather than to generic search_web or search_academic. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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