biosample_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the output type ('list of matching samples with metadata') and the backend ('NCBI E-utilities'), but it omits practical details like result limits, pagination, rate limits, or how exact term matching behaves.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The Chinese sentence repeats the English meaning, creating slight redundancy, but it adds the NCBI E-utilities context at negligible length.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema provided, the description is adequately complete: it gives the query syntax, expected result shape, and backend context. It lacks pagination/limit details, but the low complexity and existing output schema make that a minor gap.

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 must compensate for the single 'term' parameter. It does so effectively by giving concrete syntax examples: 'human[Organism]', 'cancer', and 'tissue:lung', which clarify supported search patterns far beyond the bare 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Search biological samples by keywords') and gives concrete example terms. It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'biosample_by_id' by emphasizing keyword-based search rather than identifier lookup.

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 input examples imply the intended usage, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or routing to 'biosample_by_id' for accession-based lookups is provided.

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