metabolomics_latest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool returns only an accession list for browsing, which implies a read-only, summary-level operation. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or potential absence of results, but for a simple list tool these omissions are moderate rather than severe.

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 repeats every core English clause in Chinese, so the same information is presented twice without adding anything. It front-loads the main action but uses roughly twice as many words as necessary, and the key output detail 'MTBLS accession list' is mixed into duplicated phrasing.

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 one-optional-parameter listing tool, the description identifies the data source, the type of identifiers returned, and the intended browsing purpose. An output schema exists, so return-structure details are covered outside the description. The main gaps are the lack of explicit sibling differentiation and limit semantics, but these are not crippling for this simple tool.

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 input schema has a single `limit` parameter with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The parameter name and default of 8 provide some meaning, but because schema coverage is low the description should have compensated by explaining how `limit` controls the returned list. It does not.

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: 'List latest EBI Metabolights metabolomics studies' and specifies the output as an 'MTBLS accession list.' The word 'latest' differentiates it from more detail-oriented metabolomics tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 'for browsing metabolomics data' gives an implicit use context: this is a lightweight browsing/list tool for recent studies. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use it versus metabolomics_study or other study-detail alternatives, and no 'when not to use' conditions.

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