plasmid_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates that this is a read-only search, shows the query syntax with [Title] and [Organism] field tags, and states the returned fields (accession/title/organism/length). It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a simple search tool the behavior is well disclosed.

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 concise and front-loads the core purpose, then gives practical query examples in both English and Chinese. The Chinese portion repeats the English information, but it also adds the usage context ('分子克隆与载体设计'), so the length is justified. It avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 two-parameter search tool, this description is largely complete: it specifies the data source, query construction, use case, and return fields. The output schema handles return structure, so the main gap is the lack of any guidance on `max_results` or result limits, which is a minor omission.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does a good job explaining the `query` parameter by providing concrete NCBI query examples. However, the `max_results` parameter is not described or mentioned anywhere, leaving its semantics to be inferred from the schema default of 5.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('NCBI plasmid sequences') and further specifies the operability domains, such as plasmid name or host organism. Examples of query syntax make the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is readily distinguished from sibling tools like pubmed_search or ncbi_fetch_sequence because of the plasmid-specific scope and result fields.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for searching NCBI plasmid sequences by name or host, for molecular cloning and vector design. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the purpose and query examples give enough situational clarity to an agent deciding between this and other biomedical search tools.

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