genome_assembly_search

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only search, defines the result fields, and gives query format hints. However, it does not discuss result limits, pagination, failure modes, or any NCBI-specific constraints such as API rate limits or availability.

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 purpose and stays reasonably short, but it repeats nearly all content in English and Chinese. This bilingual duplication adds no new semantic information for an LLM agent and slightly reduces conciseness.

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 present, the description covers scope, query syntax, and expected return fields. The only notable gap is lack of mention of max_results behavior, but the tool is otherwise adequately contextualized for initial use.

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 is the only source of param meaning. It substantially explains the 'query' parameter with example values and allowed content (species or assembly name), but it says nothing about 'max_results', leaving that parameter to be inferred from its default value and type.

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: 'Search NCBI Assembly genome assemblies', and scopes it to bacteria/virus/eukaryote. It also lists the returned fields (accession/name/organism/type/status) and gives example queries, making it unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling search tools like taxonomy_lookup or sra_search.

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 clearly states the input type (species or assembly name), provides concrete NCBI query syntax examples, and indicates the intended research use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for assembly-level searches.

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