go_term_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool matches an English keyword and returns GO term IDs, names, and aspects, but it does not state whether matching covers names, synonyms, or definitions, how case sensitivity works, or how the limit parameter affects results. 'Search' implies read-only behavior but never states it.

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?

Two sentences with the core verb+resource front-loaded. The bilingual restatement is partially redundant, but the Chinese portion carries the only concrete examples, return-field detail, and use-case statement, so each sentence contributes information rather than padding.

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 tool with an output schema (which already covers return values), the description covers what is searched, how, and the intended downstream use. The remaining gaps — limit semantics, search scope (names vs synonyms/definitions), and routing guidance relative to go_term_lookup — are minor rather than blocking.

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 for both parameters. It adds genuine meaning for keyword by giving example values and the English-only requirement, but it never mentions limit — its meaning, range, or effect on result count — leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Search), resource (Gene Ontology terms), and method (by keyword), and it goes further with concrete examples (apoptosis / kinase / membrane) and the return contract (list with ID, name, and aspect). The keyword-based method functionally distinguishes it from the sibling go_term_lookup without requiring the agent to open either schema.

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 the intended context ('used for functional annotation and enrichment analysis') and constrains input to English keywords, which implies when it is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like go_term_lookup or gene_go_annotation, and offers no exclusions.

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