sra_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 discloses the query syntax pattern ([Strategy] AND term), the class of resource (raw sequencing reads), and the exact fields returned. As a read-only search it needs no side-effect warning, though rate limits and API behavior are not mentioned.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and compact, but the Chinese sentence repeats nearly the same content, adding redundancy without new information. The query example is useful, but the duplication costs it a higher score.

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?

A two-parameter search with an output schema needs only modest guidance. The description provides query semantics, a realistic example, the intended use case, and the returned fields; only explicit routing to alternatives and max_results behavior are missing.

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 explains the query parameter well (gene/species/strategy with an example), but max_results is not addressed beyond its schema default and title. This is only partial compensation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), an exact resource ('NCBI SRA sequence read archive'), and a differentiator ('raw sequencing data') plus the returned accession fields. This cleanly separates it from siblings like pubmed_search or geo_dataset_search.

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?

Gives a clear use context: finding raw sequencing data by gene/species/strategy, with a concrete query example. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of 5.

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