get_samples_by_annotation

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

With no annotations, the description compensates well by stating it returns 'COMPLETE biosample records including all data objects (GFF files, protein files, etc.) with their IDs and URLs.' It also explains required ID formats. However, it lacks details on default behavior when max_records is null and does not mention offset 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 well-front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds value (usage guidelines, parameter behavior, chaining with other tools). It could be slightly shorter by combining some sentences, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure (complete records with data objects). It covers the main use case and mentions chaining with a sibling tool. Missing details on pagination (offset and limit behavior) are minor, but the description is largely complete for an agent.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning for 'gene_function_ids' (required formats) and 'max_records' (use instead of limit). It also clarifies not to use 'limit'. However, it does not explain 'offset' and 'limit' defaults, leaving some gaps.

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 finds biosamples with specific functional annotations, specifying the resource ('biosamples') and verb ('find'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_samples_by_ecosystem' and 'get_biosamples_for_study' by focusing on functional annotations.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS set max_records to match the user's request', advises against using 'limit', gives required formats for identifiers, and directs when to follow up with 'fetch_and_filter_gff_by_pfam_domains' for genomic locations.

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