geo_dataset_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and query semantics (disease/tissue/experiment type with examples), which helps an agent anticipate output. It does not mention rate limits, result ordering, or that it only searches metadata, but the read-only search nature is clearly implied.

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 English portion is front-loaded and immediately states the tool's purpose, followed by a concise Chinese translation. The inclusion of examples and return fields earns its place, though the bilingual repetition adds moderate 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 search tool with an output schema, the description covers the resource, query usage, and return contents. It lacks guidance on when to use this over related expression/sequence tools and does not clarify the behavior of max_results in terms of truncation or default limits, leaving minor but relevant gaps.

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 meaningfully explains the 'query' parameter by listing supported dimensions (disease/tissue/experiment type) and giving examples. The 'max_results' parameter is not described, though its name and default value make its purpose inferable.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search NCBI GEO gene expression datasets.' It also names the returned fields (GSE accession, title, platform, sample count, summary), which distinguishes it from literature, sequence, and other sibling tools without ambiguity.

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 phrase '用于表达谱研究找数据' implies it is meant for finding expression profiling data, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives like expression_atlas_experiment or sra_search, nor does it state exclusions.

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