microbiome_study_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and the description does disclose return fields. However, it does not mention any limitations, pagination behavior, result-count semantics, or potential API quirks, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 reasonably short and front-loaded with the core search statement. It includes helpful examples and return information, but the English and Chinese portions are largely duplicative, which adds some redundancy without adding new information for bilingual readers.

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 target database, query semantics, and typical use case. The main missing pieces are clearer treatment of max_results behavior and any guidance on when to prefer sibling tools, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 adds meaningful semantics for the required 'query' parameter by explaining it takes a host or habitat and providing examples. However, 'max_results' is not explained in the description, though its schema title provides limited self-evident meaning.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Search') on a defined resource ('EBI MGnify microbiome metagenomics studies') and lists concrete outputs (study accession, name, samples, bioproject). It is distinct from the broader sibling search tools because it names the exact database and domain.

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 concrete input guidance—host or habitat examples such as 'gut microbiome', 'human', 'soil'—and states it is intended for microbiome research. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like bioproject_search or sra_search, but the domain and input examples are clear enough for basic routing.

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