rgd_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it does disclose the input type, the organism (rat), and the output list structure. It does not disclose result limits, matching semantics (fuzzy/partial/case-insensitive), or behavior when no genes match, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 short and front-loads the core behavior, but the English sentence and the Chinese sentence largely repeat one another. The bilingual duplication is a minor structural inefficiency rather than a significant clarity problem.

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, the description covers what the tool searches, what the input should be, and what fields are returned. It is complete enough to call correctly, though mentioning the relationship to rgd_gene_symbol would further round out the context.

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 schema only defines 'term' as a required string; the description adds genuine meaning by specifying that the term may be a gene name, function, or symbol. For a single-parameter tool this compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it omits an explicit example or formatting hint.

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 action ('Search rat genes by keyword'), a clear resource, and the returned fields (gene symbol, name, RGD ID). It does not explicitly contrast with the closely related sibling rgd_gene_symbol, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 '用于基因发现' ('for gene discovery') gives a clear context for when the tool is useful, and 'search by keyword' implies broad term-based discovery. It provides no explicit exclusions or guidance about the sibling rgd_gene_symbol, so the agent must infer the recommended call path.

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