bioproject_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adequately discloses that this is a search operation returning project accession, title, description, and organism, and the 'AND' example illustrates boolean query behavior. It omits pagination or rate-limit details, but for a read-only search tool this is a minor gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, examples, and return fields appear early. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant, but the Chinese portion adds the purpose phrase about linking to sequencing projects, so the extra length is not wasted.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the resource, query syntax, output fields, and intended purpose. Missing explicit alternative guidance and max_results semantics are somewhat minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the query parameter well with examples and accepted identifier forms, but it never mentions max_results or how the limit behaves. The max_results meaning is only inferable from its title and default value.

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 'Search NCBI BioProject biological projects', naming a specific verb and resource, and then clarifies the search inputs (topic/accession) and outputs (accession/title/description/organism). This makes the tool easy to distinguish from siblings like pubmed_search or ncbi_fetch_sequence.

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?

It provides concrete usage context: searching by topic such as 'gut microbiome AND human' or by BioProject ID such as PRJNA123456, and mentions the goal of associating large-scale sequencing projects with datasets. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like sra_search or biosample_search or explain when not to use this tool.

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