dbsnp_search

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that this is a search operation and lists the returned fields, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, error behavior, or pagination. For a simple search tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 purpose, but the entire English content is redundantly repeated in Chinese. That duplication adds no information for an agent, so not every sentence 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?

For a tool with two parameters, one required, and an output schema, the description covers the overall purpose, query patterns, and return fields. It is missing a brief note on max_results and does not differentiate from overlapping sibling tools, but an agent could still invoke it correctly.

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 concrete syntax examples, but it does not describe max_results at all. Since max_results is a simple integer with a default, this is a modest gap; partial compensation only.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Search NCBI dbSNP genetic variants.' It further specifies query dimensions (gene/position/rs number), gives concrete examples, and enumerates return fields (rsID, chromosome, position, alleles, clinical significance), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like clinvar_query or variant_annotate.

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 description provides clear usage context by showing exact query syntax for gene and rs-number searches. It implies when to use this tool, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of the strongest routing guidance.

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