expression_atlas_experiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does describe the output shape (matching experiments with conditions, species, data availability) and implies a safe read-only keyword search. It does not mention result limits, pagination, or behavior when no matches are found. There is also a minor inconsistency between the English output mention ('data availability') and the Chinese output mention ('实验类型与样本数').

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: it states the purpose first, then the input/output contract, then repeats the same information in Chinese. The bilingual repetition adds minor redundancy but is not bloated. Each section earns its place for a multilingual tool interface.

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 single-parameter keyword search tool, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what to input, what to expect as output, and gives example terms. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values in detail. Missing context is limited to behavior like result limits or sorting, which is not critical for basic invocation.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'term' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the term is a free-text keyword and supplying concrete examples ('cancer', 'tissue', 'disease', 'TP53'), which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding what to pass. It does not define exact syntax, but for a simple keyword parameter this is reasonably sufficient.

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 states the specific action ('Search Expression Atlas experiments by keyword') and identifies the resource ('Expression Atlas experiments'). It distinguishes itself from likely sibling tools by focusing on 'experiments' rather than genes, though it does not explicitly name the alternative expression_atlas_gene.

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 gives clear examples of appropriate search terms (cancer, tissue, disease, TP53) and indicates the tool is for data discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like expression_atlas_gene, and there are no exclusion criteria or alternative routing guidance.

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