search_by_field

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'search,' implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, pagination, or other operational details. The safer read-only nature is not explicitly stated.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. While it is under-specified, that is a completeness issue; the writing itself is efficient 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, a nested object, and no annotations, this description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the structure of field_queries, allowable field names, how boolean operators are applied, or the effect of default values. The output schema is present but the input contract remains largely mysterious.

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, so the description should compensate. It only hints at two parameters (fields and boolean operators) but fails to explain the structure of field_queries, the meaning of operator values, or the role of size, species, and fields. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 that the tool searches by specific fields using boolean operators, which gives a clear verb and resource. However, it does not specify the data domain (e.g., genes, diseases) or differentiate it from sibling search tools like query_with_filters or build_complex_query, making it somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other search tools. It neither names alternatives nor describes the recommended context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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