search_variants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states that the operation is server-side, writes variant_search.csv, returns only variant metadata with no genotypes fetched, and limits retrieval via max_variants. It does not mention potential file-overwrite behavior or authentication requirements, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output/filter alignment, sizing/cap guidance, and alternative routing. The action is front-loaded, and no filler or restatement of schema details appears.

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 has 9 parameters, no annotations, but a full output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: what the CSV contains, what is deliberately not fetched, how to size the query, and which sibling tools to use instead. The combination of description plus rich schema coverage makes this complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful grouping by stating filters are the same as count_variants (region/MAF/missing-data), which links start/end/reference_name, min/max_maf, and max_missing_data into a cohesive filter set. It also clarifies max_variants as a retrieval cap, adding semantic context beyond the schema's per-field 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 opens with a specific action—'Search variants matching filters server-side and write the matching list to CSV'—and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like count_variants and the QC/diversity tools by stating it returns metadata only and writes a CSV. It also scopes the output precisely ('id, chrom, pos, ref, alt'), making the tool's niche unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage direction: use count_variants first to size results, rely on max_variants to cap retrieval, and avoid this tool for downstream genotype analysis in favor of QC/diversity tools with region/min_maf options. This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance tied to named alternatives.

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