Search entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that matching is against names and synonyms across a broad entity taxonomy, but says nothing about result ordering, ambiguity handling, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb, the resources, and the match basis, with zero filler. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 moderate-complexity search tool with no output schema, the description omits what a result looks like, whether matches include IDs/scores, and how aggregation or limits behave. It is adequate to identify the tool but leaves the agent to infer the response shape.

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 67%: query and type are documented with examples, and limit is self-describing via default/min/max. The description's entity list effectively expands the valid values for the type filter, but it adds no format or matching-syntax guidance beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (entities), and enumerates the searchable entity categories (genes/proteins, drugs, diseases, etc.) plus the matching basis (name or synonym). This is enough to distinguish it from most siblings like search_studies and find_relations, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_entity.

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?

Usage is only implied: you reach for this when you have a name or synonym and want to locate an entity. There is no statement of when not to use it, no routing to get_entity for ID-based lookup, and no mention of the type/limit filters as tuning options.

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