search_annotations

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 does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, though the verb 'search' implies it. The return format is described, but missing details like authentication requirements or rate limits. The description provides useful context but lacks a full safety profile.

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 an opening purpose sentence, 'Args' section, 'Returns' section, and multiple examples. Every sentence adds value, and the examples are particularly helpful for understanding parameter interaction. Despite length, it is efficiently organized and front-loaded.

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 high parameter count (7), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters with semantics, defaults, examples, and return format, leaving minimal gaps for the agent to guess.

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 fully compensate. It explains each of the 7 parameters in clear language with valid values (e.g., taxon accepts '9606' or 'NCBITaxon:9606', aspect accepts 'C','F','P'), defaults (limit default 10, max 1000), and includes multiple examples demonstrating usage. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 states 'Search for GO annotations (evidence) with filtering,' clearly identifying the verb (search) and resource (GO annotations). The examples further clarify the filtering capability, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings like 'get_annotations_for_bioentity' which likely retrieves annotations for a specific entity without the same filtering options.

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 multiple detailed examples showing when to use various parameter combinations, such as filtering by bioentity, GO term, evidence types, taxon, and aspect. However, it does not explicitly address when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'get_annotations_for_bioentity', leaving some ambiguity for the agent to decide between similar tools.

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