blast_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states output granularity ('returns top hits') and the exact fields returned, which is meaningful beyond what the tool name alone conveys. It does not mention latency, rate limits, or program/database selection details, but it does not mislead.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and uses compact one-line case descriptions. English and Chinese sections repeat the same content, which is somewhat redundant for an agent, but the overall size is small and every distinct piece of information earns its place.

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 annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description does not fully specify acceptable program/database combinations, especially using 'blastp' for protein sequences instead of the default 'blastn'. Output schema covers the return structure, but the query-parameter domain is underspecified for a general agent. The required parameter, defaults, and common use cases are present, so it is not severely incomplete.

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 add parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'sequence' can be DNA or protein and that results are top hits whose count is governed by max_hits. However, program/database values and how to choose blastp vs blastn for protein queries are left implicit, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'NCBI BLAST homology search for DNA or protein sequences.' It also lists return fields ('top hits: accession/species/E-value/identity/description'), which distinguishes it from sibling retrieval/search tools such as ncbi_fetch_sequence. Clear, specific, and unique among the sibling set.

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 'For sequence identification, homolog discovery, primer validation' line gives explicit use cases, so an agent can decide when this tool fits. It does not name exclusions or siblings to prefer in other cases, but the context is clear and actionable for this type of search tool.

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