get_biosamples_for_study

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It fails to disclose that the max_records parameter limits results, contradicting the phrase 'all biosamples'. Also lacks details on pagination, ordering, or error handling.

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 with two sentences, front-loading its primary purpose. However, it lacks structured formatting that could improve scanability.

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 absence of an output schema, the description only vaguely mentions 'metadata'. The tool's behavior regarding the max_records limit is not aligned with the claim of returning 'all biosamples', making it incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage; the description adds no meaning to the parameters. For example, it doesn't explain what study_id format is expected or how max_records affects the result.

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's purpose: to find biosamples associated with a specific study, and specifies the output type (list of IDs and metadata). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_study_for_biosample, though the reverse relationship is implicit.

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 use when you have a study ID and need related biosamples, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools for reverse lookup.

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