pride_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 explains the search behavior and the returned fields, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as result limits, case sensitivity, or metadata-only search scope. This is adequate but has room for more transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the English summary, followed by a slightly redundant but detail-rich Chinese explanation. It earns its place by adding examples and output specifics, though the bilingual repetition is a minor inefficiency.

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-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it gives the keyword purpose, examples, and expected result details. Missing pagination or sorting behavior is minor given the low complexity and the existence of an output schema.

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 compensates by explaining the keyword parameter and providing concrete examples ('cancer/human/tissue'). This gives the agent practical guidance on acceptable inputs, though it stops short of defining formats or constraints.

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 the verb (Search), the resource (PRIDE proteomics projects), and the method (by keyword). It also describes the output contents (title, species, data access links), making its function immediately obvious and distinct from generic search tools in the sibling list.

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 conveys that the tool is for keyword-based data discovery in PRIDE, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using pride_project for specific project lookups, leaving some routing to the agent.

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